FW: Re: [meteorite-list] RE: A meteorite within a meteorite

[joseph_town at att.net]

> But then again, how does a non-physical optical flash transform into a 
> meteorite? Is the progression, meteoroid to meteor and meteoriod to meteorite and never meteoroid to meteor to meteorite?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Chris Peterson" <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
> > A meteoroid, maybe. A meteor is just the optical manifestation of a natural 
> > object burning as it passes through the atmosphere, not a physical object at 
> > all.
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > *****************************************
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> > http://www.cloudbait.com
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Tom Knudson" <peregrineflier at npgcable.com>
> > To: "Charles Viau" <cviau at beld.net>; "'Christian Anger'" 
> > <christian.anger at aon.at>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; "'Bernhard 
> > Rems'" <bernhard at bgrems.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] RE: A meteorite within a meteorite
> > 
> > 
> > > "Not trying to be picky about terminology, but would not "meteor within a
> > > meteorite" be the scientifically correct statement here?  OR, just the 
> > > fact
> > > that it was encapsulated still makes it a meteorite, since it made it to 
> > > the
> > > ground."
> > >
> > > Good in theory, but wouldn't that same principle make the center of any
> > > meteorite a meteor? All of the regroths and breccias, and even graphite
> > > nodules would fit into that category, would they not?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Tom
> > 
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> 
>