PDA

View Full Version : Barbara Walters 9/20/02



LucyP
2002-Sep-21, 01:56 PM
Last night Barbara Walters interviewed Christopher Reeve. The big news with him is that he is starting to regain some very limited movement abilities after his paralyzing accident approx. 5 years ago. I didn't watch the interview on 20/20, but they gave a little clip on the evening news (to make you want to watch).

Barbara was describing CR's water therapy, and said something like: "It is easier for him to move under water because there's less gravity there."

My husband can attest to the fact that I shouted at the TV for at least 5 minutes.

Rodina
2002-Sep-21, 03:14 PM
EEeeeigh!

Well, gosh, astronauts train in water - so there must be less gravity in water! She's sure smart.

xriso
2002-Sep-21, 03:46 PM
Well, of course it's less gravity! There's no air underwater to push you down!

g99
2002-Sep-21, 05:17 PM
On 2002-09-21 11:46, xriso wrote:
Well, of course it's less gravity! There's no air underwater to push you down!


Yikes! i am hoping you are joking!!!!

When you scuba dive, you always have to ytake into concideration the weight of air above you. Ask aany diver supply store for diving tables. There will be several diving tables for almost every altitude. When underwater you have to take into affect the 1 ATM of pressure above you and the pressure of the water on you too.

I hope i am mistaken about you not joking, if i am, sorry.

Rodina
2002-Sep-21, 09:18 PM
I don't get it. One ATM of pressure? Are those things even waterproof?

(Uhm yah, we were being sarcastic)

David Hall
2002-Sep-21, 09:40 PM
On 2002-09-21 17:18, Rodina wrote:

I don't get it. One ATM of pressure? Are those things even waterproof?


I think the ones from river banks are. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Cloudy
2002-Sep-22, 07:22 AM
I doubt she actually thinks their is no gravity underwater.

I bet she is using what theologians and linguists call "phenomenological language" - in other words, you say what you percieve because it is the simpler way to say things. Even if you know the truth is a bit more complicated.

The most common examples - "The sun rose this morning.." No, the sun did not rise this morning, the Earth rotated to bring it in view.

You do percieve gravity differently under water - that is why astronauts train there. In fact, even when astronauts say they are in "Microgravity" or "Zero Gravity" they are talking about what the senses percieve and not what is in fact the case. Earth's gravity is almost as strong in low earth orbit as it is on the surface, you don't percieve it because you are in freefall.

In a deeper sense, there is no language that adequatly and fully describes any fact. You can guard against one misperception or another but can never guard against all of them at once. All language is symbolic and there will always be at least some mismatch between the symbols you use and the point you are trying to convey. "Literal" in language is a matter of degree, it is not an absolute.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-09-22 03:23 ]</font>

beskeptical
2002-Sep-22, 10:02 AM
On 2002-09-21 17:40, David Hall wrote:


On 2002-09-21 17:18, Rodina wrote:

I don't get it. One ATM of pressure? Are those things even waterproof?


I think the ones from river banks are. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif



Clever folks you are. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Sep-22, 10:14 AM
On 2002-09-22 03:22, Cloudy wrote:
In fact, even when astronauts say they are in "Microgravity" or "Zero Gravity" they are talking about what the senses percieve and not what is in fact the case.
Unless you believe in general relativity, I guess. But everybody around here is mostly Newtonian. So nineteenth century.

David Hall
2002-Sep-22, 02:46 PM
On 2002-09-22 03:22, Cloudy wrote:

I doubt she actually thinks their is no gravity underwater.

I bet she is using what theologians and linguists call "phenomenological language" - in other words, you say what you perceive because it is the simpler way to say things. Even if you know the truth is a bit more complicated.

Maybe. But most people don't talk about gravity underwater at all. They usually talk about buoyancy, or "floating", or something. I suppose it could be she's just mixing up "that weightless feeling" you get in the water with images of astronauts floating around weightless in orbit, but it still seems like a bad connection to me. "Lower gravity" is not a natural way to describe the phenomenon.

Paul Best
2002-Sep-22, 03:40 PM
It seems to be a very common misconception.

Think of all the cartoons you've ever seen where they're in space, and moving about by swimming type motions.

g99
2002-Sep-22, 09:27 PM
On 2002-09-22 03:22, Cloudy wrote:
I doubt she actually thinks their is no gravity underwater.

I bet she is using what theologians and linguists call "phenomenological language" - in other words, you say what you percieve because it is the simpler way to say things. Even if you know the truth is a bit more complicated.

The most common examples - "The sun rose this morning.." No, the sun did not rise this morning, the Earth rotated to bring it in view.

You do percieve gravity differently under water - that is why astronauts train there. In fact, even when astronauts say they are in "Microgravity" or "Zero Gravity" they are talking about what the senses percieve and not what is in fact the case. Earth's gravity is almost as strong in low earth orbit as it is on the surface, you don't percieve it because you are in freefall.

In a deeper sense, there is no language that adequatly and fully describes any fact. You can guard against one misperception or another but can never guard against all of them at once. All language is symbolic and there will always be at least some mismatch between the symbols you use and the point you are trying to convey. "Literal" in language is a matter of degree, it is not an absolute.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-09-22 03:23 ]</font>


So if a journalist says that there is no gravity on earth, the gravity will turn off!!! Cool! I'm going to write to Ms. Walters and ask her to say that i am going to win the next big lottery and that the moon will become multi coloured and a small ring system.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

P.S. Actaully barbra walters was talking about a secret scientific project between the U.S. Government and a guy named Dwane to build a artificial gravity machine unter the ocean to use as landmines, so when a submarine touches it they will be incases i a artificial grvity well and be crushed by the pressure. Christopher reeve wwas testing it with the switch switched to "less Gravity" (yes it is actually labled that). This he was able to use move around more freely in the water with less exhertion.

KarenS
2002-Sep-23, 05:01 PM
"It is easier for him to move under water because there's less gravity there."


Eh, I'd give her a pass on that one. Saying the force of gravity is counterbalanced by the water's bouyancy is just too cumbersome for a news program that wasn't even about gravity or astronomy. Though she could have said we *feel* less gravity in the water, which still isn't accurate, but closer...