Restricted: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:15, 28 September 2026

This is the absolute peak of toxic internet irony. Oscar & friend sets up a dedicated wiki page to compile a dossier on an anonymous online user tracking their handles, platform history, and arguments and then turns around and acts like they are the victim of "vandalism" because the person tries to delete or clear out a page written entirely about them.

“Good faith” is ironic coming people who slander someone with strawman arguments The name doesn’t even have restricted in it, that’s how much inaccurate this page is lol FAN FICTION . Such a fixation . Any model that needs this much protection was never science . Keep proving me right , if it was science the model would be ENCOURAGED for falsification

This is pure fan fiction behavior. Not only are you saying "good faith," good faith is not writing about somebody, putting up a profile, strawmanning their whole argument, putting the account... the account's not even under the right name. The name no longer even has "restricted" in it. This is fan fiction behavior. This is a fan fiction account. This is fan fiction obsession. Like, if your model needs this much protection, you're proving in real time it's not a science.

When does science need this much protection? No, only an unfalsifiable model needs this much protection. And you're getting upset that someone is vandalizing a page, slandering and strawmanning. It's ironic. This is internet brain rot. You haven't met the person. You don't even know the person's name. But yet you think you know, you're so comfortable writing about a person you don't even know because they have opposing views.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{infobox
+This is the absolute peak of toxic internet irony. Oscar & friend  sets up a dedicated wiki page to compile a dossier on an anonymous online user tracking their handles, platform history, and arguments and then turns around and acts like they are the victim of "vandalism" because the person tries to delete or clear out a page written entirely about them.
-|papa=[[Dave Weiss]]
-|alias=restricted_list<br>channel_restricted<br>Restricted
-|caption=restricted_list's profile on Threads as of September 2026
-|platform=[https://www.threads.com/@channel_restricted Threads]
-}}
-'''channel_restricted''' (formerly '''restricted_list''') is a United States-based flerf who posts on {{wp|Threads (social network)|Threads}}. He regularly argues with [[globers]] on the platform, and seems to rely excessively on {{wp|chatbot|AI}} to refute arguments. If it wasn't for his sheer persistence in spreading flat Earth bullshit, there would be no reason to doubt him being a [[Poe]].
+“Good faith” is ironic coming people who slander someone with strawman arguments The name doesn’t even have restricted in it, that’s how much inaccurate this page is lol FAN FICTION . Such a fixation . Any model that needs this much protection was never science . Keep proving me right , if it was science the model would be ENCOURAGED for falsification
-==Arguments and tactics==
+This is pure fan fiction behavior. Not only are you saying "good faith," good faith is not writing about somebody, putting up a profile, strawmanning their whole argument, putting the account... the account's not even under the right name. The name no longer even has "restricted" in it. This is fan fiction behavior. This is a fan fiction account. This is fan fiction obsession. Like, if your model needs this much protection, you're proving in real time it's not a science.
-He has pushed truly some of the dumbest flat-earth arguments on the planet.
+When does science need this much protection? No, only an unfalsifiable model needs this much protection. And you're getting upset that someone is vandalizing a page, slandering and strawmanning. It's ironic. This is internet brain rot. You haven't met the person. You don't even know the person's name. But yet you think you know, you're so comfortable writing about a person you don't even know because they have opposing views.
-He posts out-of-context memes as "evidence", then refuses to provide sources.
-He maintains that gravity is unfalsifiable because "you can't remove gravity from mass" and "you can't shield gravity".  He seems to justify that his own explanation for weight (some vague combination of density and electrostatics) doesn't need to be held to the same standard.
-He thinks being able to see faces in photos of Earth means they're fake (because NASA is intentionally hiding faces for people to find).
-He consistently demonstrates all three [[laws of flerf]] to an exceptional standard.
-=="Gravity-free" calculator==
-Recently, Restricted has claimed to have developed a fully functioning calculator for predicting rates of fall without using gravity.
-Of course, his "gravity-free" calculator uses gravity; {{wp|Gravity of Earth|g}} has just been substituted out for the atmosphere's pressure gradient, which is calculated using g because it relies on gravity existing. Whatever AI he asked to make the calculator likely interpreted his prompt as "a calculator that does not ''directly'' use g or {{wp|gravitational constant|G}}".
-[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IIem4z-BvLhE7NMXeIlthiQ6M-_77etLBG0u6j_V-Mo/edit?gid=1261802340#gid=1261802340 Link to the calculator on Google Sheets]
-===Equations used in the calculator===
-The calculator outputs two acceleration values; one [[density and buoyancy|due to "density/pressure"]] and one due to "electrostatics". The two accelerations are then added together to get the net acceleration.
-===="Density/pressure acceleration"====
-This equation is actually all that is needed to fully account for 9.8 m/s<sup>2</sup>, but this is because its mathematically identical to gravity plus buoyancy. (Note that in its current configuration, the calculator is outputting ~9.5 m/s<sup>2</sup> due to its use of incorrect values for ''medium density'' and ''pressure gradient''. Restricted seems perfectly happy with this error though, despite having asserted gravity was falsified after Newton's law was {{wp|Newton's law of universal gravitation#Observations conflicting with Newton's formula|off by 43 arcseconds per century}}).
-The equation is
-: <math>a= \left ( \frac{1}{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}} - \frac{1}{\rho_{\mathrm{object}}} \right ) \times \frac{dP}{dz}</math>
-Where
-* <math>\frac{dP}{dz}</math> is the atmosphere's pressure gradient.
-<math>\frac{dP}{dz}</math> of a fluid is calculated using gravitational field strength, g, in the {{wp|hydrostatic equilibrium}} formula:
-: <math>\frac{dP}{dz} = -\rho g</math>
-An attentive observer will note that this is the same as Restricted's formula but without <math>1/\rho_{\mathrm{object}}</math>. This is because his formula is not explaining where the acceleration comes from, its using the fact that a downward acceleration is already acting on the fluid to cause a pressure gradient. As <math>\rho_{\mathrm{object}}</math> approaches infinity, the buoyant force approaches zero, causing the value of a to approach the value of g (because it approaches the hydrostatic equilibrium formula).
-The <math>1/\rho_{\mathrm{object}}</math> is simply adding the effect of buoyancy, resulting in a slightly lower acceleration than g. In fact, his equation can be directly derived from the formulae for gravity and buoyancy:
-{|class="wikitable"
-|-
-! Gravity !! Buoyancy !! Net force
-|-
-| <math>F_g=-mg</math> || <math>F_B=V \rho_{\mathrm{fluid}} g</math> || <math>F = F_g + F_B</math>
-|}
-: <math>a_B = \frac{V \rho_{\mathrm{fluid}} g}{m} = \frac{V \rho_{\mathrm{fluid}} g}{V \rho_{\mathrm{object}}} = \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}} g}{\rho_{\mathrm{object}}}</math>
-: <math>a = a_B + a_g = \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}} g}{\rho_{\mathrm{object}}}-g</math>
-: <math>a = g \left (\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}}{\rho_{\mathrm{object}}}-1 \right)</math>
-: <math>a = -\frac{1}{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}} \frac{dP}{dz} \left (\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{fluid}}}{\rho_{\mathrm{object}}}-1 \right)</math>
-This simplifies to Restricted's equation. In the last step, g is substituted using the hydrostatic equilibrium formula (shown earlier).
-===="Electrostatic acceleration"====
-This relies on object polarisability and a non-uniform electric field. The Earth's atmosphere does indeed have a non-uniform electric field (starting at around 100 V/m then decreasing with height), but &nabla; E is nowhere near great enough to noticeably accelerate a macroscopic object.
-===Claims about the calculator===
-===="The calculations predate Newtonian calculations"====
-The equation uses <math>dP/dz</math>, a derivative operator in calculus. {{wp|Isaac Newton|I wonder who invented calculus?}}
-===="The calculations work in a vacuum"====
-Not only do the calculations not work in a vacuum, they don't work for any other air density unless you recalculate the pressure gradient. How does one calculate the pressure gradient? Using gravitational field strength, g.
-The calculator ''especially'' doesn't work in a vacuum, outputting an error if one attempts to set medium density to zero. And recalculating the pressure gradient does't solve this issue, since <math>dP/dz</math> in a vacuum is zero. The fact the calculator cannot work independently of a pressure gradient shows it is relying on a derivable value of g.
-==Use of AI==
-He has convinced chatbots like Gemini to agree with him on his flat Earth talking points. ''Because real research involves listening to AI's opinions, especially when AI's opinions are designed to be aligned with your own.''
-[[File:Restricted list AI heliocentric falsifiability.jpeg|thumb|Screenshot of Gemini Restricted posted to support the idea that the {{wp|heliocentric model}} is "unflasifiable".]]
-==Other info==
-* Thinks the Sun is in the clouds
-* Adheres to [[flerfspective]]
-[[Category:American flerfs]]