Drive you mad!

This is a game of words and confusing for some but we are not confused. That object on the footage is classified as a fireball because it is brighter than mag -4.5, this is pretty basic stuff and there is a VERY distinct difference between meteors and fireballs. This was the point of the discussion. NO amateur astronomer on this board who seen an object at mag - 27 say would say they just seen a bright meteor. It is a fireball plain and simple which is the point i am trying to get across.

............but it's not a game of words, Martin. The IAU set out the definitions in IAU Commission 22 (1961). Here they are. www.amsmeteors.org/define.html . I am not aware of any changes made by the IAU to these definitions.

Of course we know most amateur astronomers call very bright meteors fireballs but you cannot tell somebody they're wrong in calling them bright meteors. You may not believe me, Dave, Michael, dictionaries etc but I hope you will believe the International Astronomical Union.

Gordon

[
It's a bit like saying "I saw a car" and saying "I saw a Renault Megane".

I don't like those cars Mike... :lol:

Tut..tut...tut...
Envy will get you nowhere Seanie!

hehehe... envy, he sez... how many bulbs have you blown in that one you have?!?!

Gordon. We are confused, we think we know what were talking about here and to say that were confused about something so simple in a subject which we are very highly into is quite an insult .What do you mean by saying 'you juxtaposed his words'
He was making out that he could say that what he saw on that video was a meteor, which is incorrect. It was a fireball! Of course i know fireballs and meteors are the same things in certain ways. He said a meteor and a fireball was the same thing which is wrong. If you saw a particle brighter than -4 it's a fireball not a meteor. Though they may be made of the same material but there still different!

I know you're confused. That's what I'm to get across to you. However, I am not trying to insult you, just correct a misunderstanding. The definition I gave for a fireball is the official IAU definition, i.e "A fireball is a bright meteor with luminosity which equals or exceeds that of the brightest planets." I don't understand why you are trying to make out that a fireball is something different? It's not. It's just a term used for a particularly bright meteor.

Gordon

I am not confused in anyway is what i meant! Your telling us info that we have known for many years. So there is no need to go over this info. Look i know what a meteor is and what a fireball is.

This is a game of words and confusing for some but we are not confused. That object on the footage is classified as a fireball because it is brighter than mag -4.5, this is pretty basic stuff and there is a VERY distinct difference between meteors and fireballs. This was the point of the discussion. NO amateur astronomer on this board who seen an object at mag - 27 say would say they just seen a bright meteor. It is a fireball plain and simple which is the point i am trying to get across.

............but it's not a game of words, Martin. The IAU set out the definitions in IAU Commission 22 (1961). Here they are. www.amsmeteors.org/define.html . I am not aware of any changes made by the IAU to these definitions.

Of course we know most amateur astronomers call very bright meteors fireballs but you cannot tell somebody they're wrong in calling them bright meteors. You may not believe me, Dave, Michael, dictionaries etc but I hope you will believe the International Astronomical Union.

Gordon

Martin did not once say someone was wrong! So stop trying to make it out as if hes not agreeing in someways. He is making a point the same as me. In which is not wrong either is any way but more correct in a way. It is better to refer to a fireball if it's over -4 than a meteor and no one can argue with that.

These dictionaires are great you think:

Lol, at -10 it looks like the Collins Dictionary has very high standards for fireballs!

So dont believe everything you read :lol:

Yea Gordon that description nicely classifys the Australian object has a fireball which was the point all along. This is about using the correct terminology you see. Actually in my view the object was a bolide as it disintegrated during entry.

There is no confusion here.

Also the IAU would call that object a fireball. People are not wrong calling it a meteor but they are correct either. This is about specifics and making others understand the difference.

Surely you dont disagree with that?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Shane

PS - Gordon's right. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All Fireballs are meteors, but not all meteors are fireballs.

Can we stop the territorial markings?

PPS - Duck's arse is right, but a cool car nonetheless.