Surprising legitimate research: Black holes may not be able to form

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 5:24:15 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:

Ice in whisky? Can't be the Macallan, that's all I can say.

http://www.themacallan.com/

Good thing we are not sharing the same kitchen.

Wow! Some of this stuff is pricey!

http://www.bevmo.com/Shop/ProductDet...M-750-Ml/42553

http://www.bevmo.com/Shop/ProductDet...lan-30-Yr/9500

wrote:
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 5:36:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 10:33:19 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:56:28 -0600, Chris L Peterson



wrote this crap:



It isn't simply a matter of buildings. It's a matter of land ownership

and of expensive infrastructure like power plants and ports. If a city

like New York gets destroyed- something that is increasingly likely-

it is questionable whether the U.S. economy and political structure

will even survive.



Nonsense. Whole cities have been destroyed before and they were

rebuilt. San Francisco earthquake, London bombing, Hiroshima, Moscow

(1812 burning.)



Not only were they all rebuilt, but their destruction had happened in a
matter of seconds to months, IOW a short time frame and yet their
"societies" survived. Rising sea levels would occur slowly enough for
the inhabitants of coastal cities to adapt, or move, over the projected
lifespan of most of the structures involved.


However the Japanese economy has still not recovered decades after the Kobe
Earthquake.

And yet Kobe itself was back on its feet within a year...curious.

London would have been crippled by floods without the Thames Barrier.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier

Due to rising sea levels it's now being used twice as often.

Conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

The storm surge of 2007 would have been a national disaster without the
Thames barrier. My son's family had to evacuate from the East coast to my
house (on the 60M contour) but their house missed flooding because the high
water level was 2 cm below the sea wall.

Yes, areas next to oceans have always been and will always be vulnerable
to storms. No surprise there.

The areas in London most vulnerable to FLOODing seem to be located on
FLOODplains. One way that you can tell that FLOODs might happen there is
that the term FLOODplain has the word FLOOD in it. A FLOOD is the sort of
thing one should always be on the watch for when living near a river.

Such storm surges should be 100 year events but there have been two in the
past 7 years.

No one really knows how often such "100 year events" should occur. There
is not enough historical data available.

So 2,000 years is not long enough?

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...1831/1455.full

On Friday, 3 October 2014 00:03:20 UTC+2, Lord Vath wrote:

Not too long ago a hurricane hit the edge of New York and a rogue wave

hit Manhattan and flooded the subways.

Isn't that why they are called sub-ways?

In sci.astro.amateur message
, Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:33:19, Lord Vath posted:

Nonsense. Whole cities have been destroyed before and they were
rebuilt. San Francisco earthquake, London bombing, Hiroshima, Moscow
(1812 burning.)

London was not destroyed by bombing. There was considerable damage, but
London remained at all times a functioning city. Much more of it has
been destroyed piecemeal since WWII, by architects, developers, and
their associates.

AIUI, Hiroshima was not wholly destroyed; only the centre. The death
was fairly recently announced of a man whose work took him to a suburb
of Hiroshima that morning. He was significantly injured; but he
managed to get home in under three days. His home was in a suburb of
Nagasaki. Granted that those cities were made very largely non-
functional by the attacks.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.