I want to address the accusation of plagiarism. This is definitely a supplementary (not full) answer, but the level of appropriateness of the response could be judged differently depending on whether there actually was plagiarism or not, so it is potentially relevant information.

The answer includes this passage:

As the fireball travels through the air, a layer of extremely hot gas forms in front of the meteor, which is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This results in a "hydrodynamic cushion" that provides the meteor with a measure of protection from direct collisions,

This hydrodynamic cushion creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor: One is at 3500-5000K, and one at 10000K.

Meanwhile, the source includes this passage:

As the fireball travels through the atmosphere, the hot vapor from ablation is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This creates an air cap or hydrodynamic cushion that protects the meteor from direct collisions, which can be seen in the figure below.

[figure omitted]

This barrier creates two macrostates in front of the meteor: One at 3500-5000K, which we will call the main spectrum, and one at 10000K, which we will call the second spectrum.

The similarity of these two passages without any indication of the relationship between the source text and the answer text qualifies this part of the answer as plagiarism.

To prevent this from being plagiarism, one could add an indicator like, "To paraphrase this site," along with clear marking of where the paraphrasing begins and ends, and that would be one way to bring the post in line with our referencing guidelines.

Again, this answer only concerns the existence of an instance of plagiarism, and not (directly) the appropriateness of the response given that an instance exists.

I want to address the accusation of plagiarism. This is definitely a supplementary (not full) answer, but the level of appropriateness of the response could be judged differently depending on whether there actually was plagiarism or not, so it is potentially relevant information. (Also, although this is my answer, I believe it reflects the consensus of all the moderators, so you can take this as semi-official.)

The answer includes this passage:

As the fireball travels through the air, a layer of extremely hot gas forms in front of the meteor, which is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This results in a "hydrodynamic cushion" that provides the meteor with a measure of protection from direct collisions,

This hydrodynamic cushion creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor: One is at 3500-5000K, and one at 10000K.

Meanwhile, the source includes this passage:

As the fireball travels through the atmosphere, the hot vapor from ablation is compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules. This creates an air cap or hydrodynamic cushion that protects the meteor from direct collisions, which can be seen in the figure below.

[figure omitted]

This barrier creates two macrostates in front of the meteor: One at 3500-5000K, which we will call the main spectrum, and one at 10000K, which we will call the second spectrum.

The similarity of these two passages, specifically including phrases like

• "As the fireball travels through the [air/atmosphere]"
• "compressed by collisions with atmospheric atoms and molecules"
• "This [hydrodynamic cushion/barrier] creates two macrostates ahead of the meteor"

without any indication of the relationship between the source text and the answer text qualifies this part of the answer as plagiarism.

To prevent this from being plagiarism, one could add an indicator like, "To paraphrase this site," along with clear marking of where the paraphrasing begins and ends, and that would be one way to bring the post in line with our referencing guidelines.

Again, this answer only concerns the existence of an instance of plagiarism, and not (directly) the appropriateness of the response given that an instance exists.