Ellen Stuttle

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ellen Stuttle last won the day on January 2

Ellen Stuttle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Ellen Stuttle

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Recent Profile Visitors

13,168 profile views
  1. It isn't a debate tactic. It's a question. And you've once again avoided at length the issues Jonathan is challenging you to address. Ellen
  2. Jon, Are you indicating that you think that the massacre was faked? If that is what you think, faked by whom? And why? Ellen
  3. Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped. He's put effort into becoming good at the tricks. Why? Ellen
  4. Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
  5. That does the job right there of demonstrating that any inner circle must be slipping, since all positions of the entire configuration are always the same distance relative to the contact point. Ellen
  6. "Tangential velocity" is and needs to be in relation to a tangent at the point at which it's measured. You effectively accept the idea of an imagined tangent line in accepting the idea of tangential velocity, but you reject the idea of a particular imagined tangent line - the horizontal tangent at the 6 o'clock position - in rejecting the idea of an imagined track on which the smaller circle rolls. This is what I was trying to get through to you, but never mind. Your subsequent sentence mixes up rotational speed and tangential velocity. And then you go on in a subsequent reply to Max to make the same mix-up and you call it "nitpicking" when Max explains the thorough screw up in your thinking which results. Hopeless. As Max says: I, too, am afraid that it isn't satire. You really are muddled beyond unmuddling. Ellen
  7. You haven't answered the question. Ellen
  8. Here's where the "crutch" charge was started, in a diatribe by Merlin on November 19, 2018. Merlin has subsequently made the "crutch" charge nine times in close to the identical wording (viz., that the track is your crutch without which "you are too lame-brained to deal with reality"). Ellen
  9. What is there for the inner wheel to have tangential velocity in relation to? You won't accept the idea of an imaginary support, but then you turn around and rely on the idea of a tangent which doesn't physically exist. Ellen
  10. As I'd said in the post Bob replied to. How many repetitions will be needed before he pays attention? Ellen
  11. I'm reading consecutively from where I last posted yesterday. Ninth's post ends a page, so I've had no glimpse of what, if anything, Bob responded. If he's responded in true-to-form fashion, he'll have said something along the lines of his having a high IQ, therefore not being a "knucklehead." However, Mr. Brilliant - especially at math - doesn't seem to be able to grasp that about .159... miles north of the South Pole, one could circumambulate the globe walking one mile west. (Also on smaller circles the circumference of which is a whole-number fraction of one mile.) Ellen
  12. The smaller wheel's travel distance is lengthened (though not artificially) by its slipping relative to a horizontal tangent at the 6 o'clock position. This is not the same statement as that the smaller wheel's circumference is lengthened. Ellen
  13. No, that would not be more suitable. There's no lengthening of the smaller wheel's circumference. See Jonathan's and Max's replies to the rest of your post. Ellen
  14. I won't argue about the degree of Tony's bad at mech. He isn't good. It's just that he does bring in some considerations - especially friction - which would have some effect in a physical instantiation. I often wonder if Tony bothers to read what he's responding to. I think that often Bob only sees some isolated feature of a post to which he responds, and that he does not follow the progression of a discussion, which is why he comes up with strange things, like taking your visual illustration of the walking instructions as being a northwest direction. Ellen
  15. We did say that the circumference of the small circle slides or slips in relationship to the track. The small circle is not doing a true roll on the track. This is not to say that the small wheel slips in relationship to the surrounding figure. Nor is it to say that the small wheel's circumference is extended (your latest incorrect attribution). Ellen