(meteorobs) Definition of a meteor (-Bob V off-list)

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Hola Bob (off lists):
 
No need to be so harsh on the "astronomer group".  They have no right  to 
mess with language useage, I am sure that was the reason, though you haven't  
provided who they are nor their official definition word for word.  They  didn't 
drop the ball, rather they respected that there are different points of  view 
that have conflicting terminology and that it is not in their place to  change 
the George's, Bob's and Doug's of the world when precedent is set.
 
Curious what you would call the body interrupted from fall in mid air by  
"unnatural" means and recovered.during atmospheric passage.  Meteor  samples?  
"Stuff"?  Artificial meteorites?  George's trick?   Bolidusinterruptus?  Just 
joking, and as always appreciate your point of  view even if our buddy George 
doesn't...
Saludos, Doug
 
 
 
En un mensaje con fecha 04/28/2005 4:02:35 PM Mexico Daylight Time,  
bolidechaser at yahoo.com escribe:

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