Hacker News Reader

That was exactly what I thought about when I read the title. It may have been a very temporary waterfall, but it must have been enormous.

So does the Black Sea waterfall not count because it was so temporary? Was it still somehow smaller than the one from the article? Or has its size not yet been verified?

View on HN

The whole enormous-quick-waterfall hypothesis is somewhat speculative; not proven, but not conclusively disproven either.

I think there's a definition of waterfall that includes a longevity requirement; i.e. as there are some "waterfalls" which only exist shortly after rainfall, then dry up again, and thus can't be called waterfalls. I'll try to dig up a reference for that half-recalled fact...

A very wordy, non-scientific defintion here: http://www.world-of-waterfalls.com/featured-articles-waterfa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com