PSA: The word "explosion" has multiple definitions, plenty of which are actually quite reasonable to apply to meteors! It can refer to the sound alone, for example. The people reporting an explosion in Massachusetts were not incorrect!

It would however, be incorrect to claim that the meteor had noting to do with explosions.

▲

jagged-chisel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

None of the definitions I found are concerned with only sound. One mentions sound as a result of an explosion.

PSA: expressing an opinion (incorrect or otherwise) is not actually a public service announcement

▲

jojobas 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No? There is no violent expansion or bursting, even if the sound is similar. It is as much an explosion as a supersonic jet passing by, and that is not much.

The term makes people think atmospheric heating causes an actual steam explosion and that's the source of shockwave, which can't be further from truth.

▲

sholladay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you not consider Tunguska an explosion? It’s always described as such. IIRC, it never even hit the ground. Sure, a lot of the damage was caused by the air being compressed from above, but it created an air burst, which would have released a lot of energy in every direction.

	▲	jojobas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, it's a misnomer as with any other meteor. If you were to witness the breakup from the bolide's reference frame and without all the rushing air you'd never call it an explosion.