(meteorobs) Definition of a meteor (was Re: Fifth grade sciencebook)

[John Kuehn]

My sentiments exactly and succinctly put. Well Done!

Robert Verish wrote:

>Just made a quick scan of the Meteorobs Archives to
>see the most recent posts, and I see a number of them
>by GeoZay, which indicates to me that George has posed
>his trick question again.  I call it a “trick
>question” because there is no “correct” answer, at
>least none that fits, based on what has been deemed
>the “approved” definition for meteoroid and meteorite.
> Apparently, there is no “approved” term for the
>conundrum that George poses regarding dark-phase
>flight.  Definitely, George is correct about the
>“approved” definition of a meteoroid, and that it
>excludes its usage for this object during it fall to
>earth.  But the very same group of astronomers that
>defined a meteoroid, also approved the definition for
>“meteorite”, which excludes its usage for that same
>purpose.  So, we’re back to square one.  
>
>Old timers to this list are very familiar with this
>discussion, since it seems to get repeatedly raised by
>George every other year, and they probably make a deep
>sigh when they see it brought up again, knowing that
>it will still go unresolved. And many of them look at
>what I consider to be a valid discussion as just
>proselytizing by George and his trying to win over
>some more converts to redefining the term meteorite. 
>
>Which brings me to the question that I continually
>ask:  When all the astronomers got together to define
>and approve all of these astronomical terms that we
>are discussing, why did they stop short and not assign
>a term to this physical object?  Were they remiss, or
>were they unable to come to an agreement, or was it
>intentionally omitted?   But then, this same august
>body of astronomers deemed it necessary to
>specifically define the term “METEORTITE”, as well,
>which makes this gap in their terminology so much more
>inexplicable.  Understanding what was their intention
>in leaving this gap in their terminology would go a
>long way in helping us to resolve this issue.
>
>In my opinion, this august body of astronomers dropped
>the ball.  They dropped the ball when they didn’t
>redefine what a meteor should be.  They stuck to the
>archaic meteorological definition that had as its
>basis the concept of rocks falling from the sky as
>being heretical.  If they had modernized the
>definition of a meteor and stretched it to include not
>only the light phenomenon, but the physical object
>that produced it, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND, this
>gap in “approved” terminology would be completely
>filled.  
>
>Instead of redefining what a meteorite should be,
>redefine what is a meteor and you solve the conundrum.
>
>
>Bob V.
>
>---
>Mailing list meteorobs
>meteorobs at meteorobs.org
>http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>
>  
>