And it is a very silly label system, decided mostly by people who didn’t fully understand what they were observing. Ask an astronomer to explain the differences asteroid vs meteor vs comet vs dwarf planet and see what dirty looks you get in response.
Long story short, it’s going to involve Venn diagrams, classification on multiple traits that can change over time, classification on multiple traits we don’t fully understand, and a lot of historical figures making arbitrary choices in their writing.
Ask an astronomer to explain the differences asteroid vs meteor vs comet vs dwarf planet and see what dirty looks you get in response.
A meteoroid is a comet or asteroid.
A meteor is the visible phenomenon that a meteroid creates as it burns.
A meteorite is any part of a meteoroid which survives burning through the atmosphere and impacts the earth.
Asteroids are primarily comprised of more dense rocky and metallic substances, they’re more like rocks.
Comets are primarily comprised of ice and very non dense bits of dust, they’re more like snowballs.
… I knew all of this by the time I was in 5th grade.
I am not an astronomer.
These are not difficult concepts.
…
Dwarf planets can be comprised of many things, but a very significant attribute they have is that they are massive enough to have gravity form them into spherical shapes, whereas asteroids and comets are much smaller and have very irregular topographies.
If you want to get into the exact distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet, basically the main difference is that a dwarf planet is not massive enough to achieve local orbital dominance, whereas a planet is.
A more thorough discussion of that would involve referring to other complex concepts, as well as math with letters in it… but seeing as you’d rather pretend that words with straightforward meanings that most people understand by the age of 10 are actually all stupid and arbitrary, I doubt it would be a very productive discussion.
I’m afraid you are arguing with the simplified non-scientific definitions. Did you think I was making the complexity up? The reality of our classification system is a mess, like most classification systems, since nature doesn’t care what labels we attach.
The scientific definition of an asteroid is actually a combination of several factors, including where the asteroid resides (inside Jupiter’s orbit? A Trojan? A Greek?), it’s size, it’s composition (just basically not entirely icy), and it’s historical origin. This gets exceptionally complex when you take into account and icy body in the asteroid belt (we know of many), a comet that has burned off it’s ice, an ejected asteroid in strange orbits, an asteroid orbiting a planet (see Mars’ moons), a body that otherwise meets criteria as an asteroid that is larger than the other asteroids (Ceres etc)… Generally scientists today don’t use ‘asteroid’ in technical writing, they prefer ‘minor planet’.
The scientific definition of meteor/meteoroid/meteorite means that any body can become a meteor if it’s in the right conditions, but it’ll still be a meteoroid/comet/asteroid/moon/dwarf planet too. It’s nearly useless as a set of definitions, especially when the meanings of the same words have changed consistently since the founding of modern astronomy.
A comets definition, like that of an asteroid, is actually tied to its location (oort cloud? Kuiper belt? elliptical orbit? Stable orbit past Jupiter? Currently orbiting a planet? Currently close enough to the sun?), speed (influences if it can form a coma), temperature (influences if it can form a coma), composition (influences if it can form a coma), historical origin (oort cloud? Kuiper belt?). It’s another definition rarely used by scientists outside scientific communication because it lacks a firm foundation to stand on.
I don’t see the argument you’re making. Science across all disciplines is complex. The more a person attempts to understand and define an object or a phenomenon it opens more doors to more questions about it’s nature. Classification is inherent to our human minds understanding the world around us.
Oh no argument here with that point at all, that’s a fine perspective and observation. Classification is necessary, but nuance and patience when dealing with the gray areas between are too.
My initial point was just poking fun at the mess poor astronomers have to deal with. It being one of the oldest natural sciences and all it has a bigger mess than most.
Nature doesn’t care about our silly label system.
And it is a very silly label system, decided mostly by people who didn’t fully understand what they were observing. Ask an astronomer to explain the differences asteroid vs meteor vs comet vs dwarf planet and see what dirty looks you get in response.
Long story short, it’s going to involve Venn diagrams, classification on multiple traits that can change over time, classification on multiple traits we don’t fully understand, and a lot of historical figures making arbitrary choices in their writing.
A meteoroid is a comet or asteroid.
A meteor is the visible phenomenon that a meteroid creates as it burns.
A meteorite is any part of a meteoroid which survives burning through the atmosphere and impacts the earth.
Asteroids are primarily comprised of more dense rocky and metallic substances, they’re more like rocks.
Comets are primarily comprised of ice and very non dense bits of dust, they’re more like snowballs.
… I knew all of this by the time I was in 5th grade.
I am not an astronomer.
These are not difficult concepts.
…
Dwarf planets can be comprised of many things, but a very significant attribute they have is that they are massive enough to have gravity form them into spherical shapes, whereas asteroids and comets are much smaller and have very irregular topographies.
If you want to get into the exact distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet, basically the main difference is that a dwarf planet is not massive enough to achieve local orbital dominance, whereas a planet is.
A more thorough discussion of that would involve referring to other complex concepts, as well as math with letters in it… but seeing as you’d rather pretend that words with straightforward meanings that most people understand by the age of 10 are actually all stupid and arbitrary, I doubt it would be a very productive discussion.
I’m afraid you are arguing with the simplified non-scientific definitions. Did you think I was making the complexity up? The reality of our classification system is a mess, like most classification systems, since nature doesn’t care what labels we attach.
I don’t see the argument you’re making. Science across all disciplines is complex. The more a person attempts to understand and define an object or a phenomenon it opens more doors to more questions about it’s nature. Classification is inherent to our human minds understanding the world around us.
Oh no argument here with that point at all, that’s a fine perspective and observation. Classification is necessary, but nuance and patience when dealing with the gray areas between are too.
My initial point was just poking fun at the mess poor astronomers have to deal with. It being one of the oldest natural sciences and all it has a bigger mess than most.