[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bolide size versus recovered ...

In your message dated Thursday 26, February 1998 you wrote :
> A) Phil wrote: It would be useful to get rid of this obsolete term
> "bolide" as it has no real
> scientific meaning.
> 
> What makes this term  o b s o l e t e ?

Hi Bernd,

I was using "obsolete" in a scientific context. The definitions of terms used in 
meteor astronomy were decided in 1961 by IAU Commission 22 on Meteors and 
Meteorites. They preferred the term "fireball" to "bolide". Although bolide is 
still used by some it is, at the end of the day, simply a "fireball". Clearly 
having two terms to describe one phenomenon is unnecessary. (BTW the first use 
of the term bolide was in France in 1852 to describe a bright meteor.)

There are very real problems with using obsolete terminology. If you ask six 
people to explain what a bolide is then you'll probably get six different 
answers - because there is no official definition. Any discussion about bolides 
then rapidly descends (no pun intended) into confusion because everyone has a 
slightly different idea of what a bolide is.

Personally, I prefer bolide: I think "fireball" is confusing!

If you really want to preserve the term then you can petition the IAU. However, 
be prepared for a fight! They don't like changing terminology if they can 
possibly avoid it - and you have to have some very good arguments on your side 
to win.

I hope that clears matters.

-- 
Phil Bagnall
http://www.ticetboo.demon.co.uk/