begin quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 10:27:05AM -0700: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > > begin quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:24:08PM > > -0700: > > [snip] > > > A meteor is the light phenomon associated with a meteroid coming > > > throughthe atmosphere. Once it strikes, it is a meteorite. As per the > > > definition, it should hit the earth's crust, however I am certain that > > > it can be extended to any planetary (or satellite) surface, including > > > inhabitants. > > > > I am not so certain. If simple proximity counted, you might as well > > call it a meteorite for hitting the atmosphere. But we don't do > > that, so I don't think it's nearly so clear-cut. > > What about if it hits the ocean? What would you have it called?
That's just the damp patch of crust. :)
> In the case of hitting a person, you are talking about a 6' difference
> away from the surface. In the case of the atmosphere, you are talking
> about, say, 372 miles[1]. That is a difference of 32736000%.
Since we're being pedantic, that's not a difference.
> This is not
> insignifcant.
It is when you look at the path taken by the meteoroid/meteor. The
fraction of time/distance spent in the atmosphere is insignificant,
and yet we choose to name it differently.
However, that's all moot.
A meteorite is at rest. A meteor is in transit. You aren't hit by a
meteorite, you're hit by a meteor, as it hasn't yet come to rest.
I suppose it's all a matter of which side the discontinuity is on...
Time -->
meteor -----------------------
meteorite -------------------------
^
Impact
-Stewart "We need a new word meaning 'at the time of impact': an 'ow'." Stremler
pgpqAKsnj7Q1H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
