Talk:Gocta Cataracts
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Please google en images for Ramnefjelfossen and Mongefossen, so u can see that they aint waterFALLS, they are only rapids and therefore not considerd in the National Geografic Society as Waterfalls. Gocta is indeed the Third tallest Waterfall on world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.60.139.211 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 March 2006.
Gocta Cataracts
[edit]First off, learn how to use proper English. \
Secondly, you know absolutely nothing about waterfalls. The National Geographic Society is out-of-date in re waterfall rankings. Secondly, neither Ramnefjellsfossen or Mongefossen are considered rapids. Look up the word rapids in the dictionary. The two Norway waterfalls are free-leaping.
- Note I restored the original remarks changed by 200.106.32.160 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC))
Suggest that you contact Brian Swan at the www.world-waterfalls.com for a further discussion.
Jeremy Sefton-Parke.--Kinopanorama widescreen 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
See also:
http://nrk.no/redskap/utskriftsvennlig/1772975.html (Ramnefjellsfossen) http://home.c2i.net/larsaeth/MONGEFOS.jpg (Mongefossen)
Both FLOW (not fall !!!) only during snowmelt periods. SEE ALSO www.world-waterfalls.com (!), webpage (not institution) which considers any vertical FLOW (NOT FALL) as Waterfall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.106.32.160 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 March 2006.
Reply to above:
Wrong! The Ramnefjellsfossen flows throughout the year; Mongefossen flows during heavy snowmelt. Furthermore, Angel Falls is dry for some two to three-months of the year. Tugela Falls flows some four- to six-months, depending on heavy rains. Jslasher 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Formatting by User:CambridgeBayWeather for clarity
[edit]Hello, as hydrologist I have to say that the two Norwegian waterfalls (as seen in the photos linked above) are not true waterfalls, but cascades; a cascade consists of various waterfalls one after another, and therefore implicates the existence of a number of steps along the whole length/heighth of the fall. Due to this definition, the Norwegian cascades cannot be considered true waterfalls.
Nevertheless, this discussion is of geological short-term relevance, since waterfalls keep constantly eroding the rock, and therfore a variation in the height has to be counted with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.214.199.51 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2006.
Wrong, The Norwegian 'fossen', both of which are free-leaping, are waterfalls. What in heavens do you mean by a 'true' waterfall? Your comment boarders on the ridiculous. So, without further ado, in respect to the several hundreds of listings, easily accessable on Google, the two Norwegian waterfalls are the third and fourth tallest in the world. Also, whilst I am at it, I would suggest that you compare the thumbnail photo of Tugela Falls, which I photographed (Kinopanorama Music), with that of Ramnejlsfossen. They are both free-leaping falls.--Jslasher 08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I submit the following email received from Brain Swan, which I quote verbatim: "From what I've gathered, Ziemendorff probably had at his disposal the same information propogated by the National Grographic Society, various Encyclopedias, etc. that listed the "OLD" list of the tallest waterfalls on Earth (Angel, Tugela, Yosemite, Kukenaan, etc). I am assuming that he wasn't aware of our site at the time, hence everyone got worked up about the "third tallest" thing. It made for a better story for sure, and it generated a hell of a lot of interest - World Waterfall Database (WWD) actually got shut down for 24-hours because our server was overloaded with page requests. Hopefully, all of that interest spread more reasonable knowledge that its (ie. Gocta) stature isn't nearly as grandiose as claimed."--Jslasher 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The position in the ranking depends only and exclusively of the definition. All in all, there are three definitions of what is a waterfall: 1. UNINTERRUPTED (CONTINUOUS) VERTICAL DROPS OF 180 DEGREES: According to this criteria, the Salto Ángel (Venezuela) is the tallest waterfall reaching a height of 807 metres; the second tallest is the Kukenan (Venezuela) with a measured 610 metres, leaving the third position to Gocta (Peru) with 540 metres at the second drop. 2. INTERRUPTED VERTICAL DROPS OF 180 DEGREES: This criteria seems to be applied by the National Geographic Society. It calls the Santo Ángel again the tallest, this time with a considered height of 979 metres (it varies according to source); the second talles are the Tugela Falls in South Africa with 948 metres (even though not all drops are 180 degrees); as the third tallest fall remains Gocta (Peru) with a total 771 metres. 3. DROPS OF VARYING INCLINATION, INTERRUPTED OR UNINTERRUPTED: This is the criteria of the website “World Waterfall Database”; On this site, also those falls are listed where most of the sections are in constant contact with the rocks, such as Utigardfossen (also called Ramnefjellsfossen) and Mongefossen. For some database, this could be a crateria, but nevertheless it is completely contrary to the global general sense of what is a waterfall is: free, vertical drops! Click here for fotos of so called Waterfalls (higher rated then Gocta in World Waterfall Database): http://www.waterfallsnorthwest.com/waterfall.php?num=151&p=0 http://www.vulkaner.no/n/pics/wfoss1.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=69497725&context=set-1496896&size=l
I would like to know what this "global general sense" of what a waterfall is stems from? The idea that a waterfall must fall truly perpendicular to its course of flow - falling 90 degrees straight down - flies completely in the face of centuries of international precedent, not to mention simple visual reasoning, and as such is completely absurd. Its fairly simple to look at a picture and say "that right there is a waterfall". There is no logical reason why a fall of only 89 degrees should NOT be considered a legitimate waterfall simply because it touches the bedrock and therefore isn't freefalling. If a person were to trip and fall over a cliff that was less than 90 degrees in slope, they'd still fall. Why should water get special treatment?
Lets look at some famous waterfalls around the world:
Rhinefall in Switzerland. Widely recognized as the largest waterfall by volume in Europe. 24 meters tall. Virginia Falls in the Northwest Territory, Canada. Second only to Niagara Falls in terms of volume in Canada. 80 meters tall. Cauvery Falls in India. One of the highest volume waterfalls in all of India. 98 meters tall. Nevada Falls in California. Largest waterfall on the Merced River, one of the biggest tourist draws in Yosemite. Appx 125 meters tall.
I guess none of these waterfalls can be considered waterfalls any longer because they don't fall freely. But wait, lets take this further...
Sutherland Falls in New Zealand DOES NOT fall freely but is pretty obviously a waterfall. Ribbon Falls in Yosemite DOES NOT fall freely but is pretty obviously a waterfall. Della Falls in British Columbia DOES NOT fall freely and is widely accepted (incorrectly) as the tallest waterfall in Canada. And my personal favorite example, Gocta itself contacts the side of the amphitheater for approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of its descent and hence DOES NOT fall freely.
If we apply this line of thinking, there are suddenly a whole lot fewer legitimate waterfalls on the planet and that just doesn't make sense. A cliff is not less a cliff if its pitched at 80 degrees or 50 degrees, its still rock. A road is no less of a road if its gravel rather than pavement. A boat is no less of a boat if it doesn't have a motor. A book is no less of a book if it only has 20 pages rather than 200 pages. So why should a waterfall be any less (or not at all) of a waterfall if it doesn't fall a true 90 degrees? Bryanswan (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Waterfalls, cascades, rapids: a continuum
[edit]What constitutes a waterfall? Obviously, a hydrologist may define it differently than a waterfall aficionado, who may in turn define it differently than a layperson--but whose definition is more appropriate for Wikipedia? The term "waterfall" is applied every day, in general usage, to a wide array of instances of descending water. While an instance that involves a series of steps or a <90-degree slide may not qualify as a "true" waterfall (or even a waterfall at all) according to certain purists, I think most people would call such instances waterfalls. By the purist definition, Vernal Fall in Yosemite National Park is a waterfall, while its higher upstream neighbor, Nevada Fall, is not (because it's not quite free-leaping). But writers, naturalists, and park visitors certainly have been describing both as waterfalls for more than a century. It might be interesting to check the OED for the word's history. In the meantime, here are four dictionary definitions of "waterfall":
Oxford American Dictionary: a cascade of water falling from a height, formed when a river or stream flows over a precipice or steep incline.
Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary: a perpendicular or very steep descent of the water of a stream.
American Heritage Dictionary: a steep descent of water from a height; a cascade.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary: a steep fall or flow of water in a watercourse from a height, as over a precipice; cascade.
Note that three of the four specifically use the word "cascade."
I would suggest that, due to the nature of streambeds and riverbeds, there are always going to be some gray areas. At what point do waterfalls become cascades? cascades become rapids? Is it even important? Trying to definitively rank even the top three waterfalls in the world seems like an inevitably controversial endeavor. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Wikipedia would be best served by acknowledging these controversies and presenting various potentially valid viewpoints. Rivertorch 05:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
External links
[edit]I've removed the following links from the external links section; they're not appropriate as external links but can be used as sources to improve the article.