Talk:Restricted: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:25, 10 October 2026

Yeah calling someone not the sanest person is definitely not bullying & calling him a vandal is definitely sincere

Im literally insane for looking at a local sun & saying it’s local . A lot of irony in that 😂😂

But anyways This anti gravity calculator you couldn't sneak G in even if you tried. 1000% gravity free, backed by science and empirical evidence, with sources on the extended version 😂😂😂 good luck. This calculator accounts for why things fall AND rise.. It also accounts for a vacuum, water, and oil. It hits the 9.8 constant without a single need for G. Good luck proving the force now that 9.8 can be hit without G….gravity is still unisolated, only assumed fiat force that only explains why things go down.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NsqxcEU0NlxqJjOOlZvzzVkNwJbQ0K2FPb2nYX126-E/edit?usp=drivesdk

Extended version with sources & mathematical bridge https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feLbyeGzIxpya9sdqXm3VA6aY5FFPTAqXJ2qO2oPb6Y/edit?usp=drivesdk

Btw Im waiting For you guys to tell me where G is 😂😂😂😂😂… nah it’s gonna be comical this time .. ITS LITERALLY NOWHERE .. try using Ai to find it 😂😂

Well this is exciting!

I thought you'd ran away! Looking through this new document, its a complete mess. I don't know why you need so many tabs for what should be a simple calculation.

I haven't looked through it thoroughly, and I'm not going to unless you

State the formula the calculator is using
State where it appears in the calculator
Calculate the acceleration of the feather in vacuum using the formula and show the working out on this page.

If you can't do these three things because "its all in the calculator" (or whatever excuse you give), I'll know you don't actually understand anything because you had AI make it for you.

Make sure you add your reply beneath this one without deleting anything, since it seems like you still haven't learned how to use a wiki talk page.

Washcarso (talk)

If you actually opened the comprehensive calculation breakdown tab instead of hand waving from the jump, you'd see exactly how everything works. Here it is in plain English.

I guess all you want to know is How do I get the magical 9.8 without gravity?

FOR TEST 1

You take three measurements from a reference drop • Height: 2 meters • Time: 0.6388 seconds • Impact velocity: 6.26 m/s Those are just a stopwatch reading and a tape measure. Nothing assumed.

Then you run them through three different equations that all describe the same fall: • From height and time: a = 2h/t² = 9.8023 • From height and velocity: a = v²/2h = 9.7969 • From time and velocity: a = v/t = 9.7996 Three independent paths. They land within 0.06% of each other. You average them BOOM 9.7996 m/s².

ZERO GRAVITY NEEDED

How you find if it rises or falls..

you take that baseline & adjust it using the objects density contrast to the object's charge & electrostatic force (which the force is able to be isolated & manipulated) in our electrical field we are in (that’s testable , not assumed.)

There’s a detailed tab for you called the TEST EQUATIONS.. this gives a break down for each test result & all the inputs . You can do a feather vacuum , steel , wood , etc in water, air,oil or a vacuum

There’s nothing too messy , it’s that you can’t understand & always need to be hand held .. it’s Literally simple .. but the question is .. where’s the gravity ?????????????????????????😂😂😂😂😂😂

Btw the math works everytime consistently

Good luck trying sneak G INTO THAT

To answer “why so many tabs “ it’s to make the bridge easy to understand, Im simply Not just telling you an acceleration. Im giving The direction , the ability to change specifics about the test , the mathematical bridge to real life & sources on electrostatics, so you can’t say Im making It up .

Any bozo can tell you 9.8. But modeling the exact direction, calculating how acceleration changes depending on the medium, predicting the exact charge required to make an object rise or float or even for a helium balloon to sink, and testing for shielding dynamics …thats literally a mathematical art form. The equations & tabs are fully transparent so you can’t cry about hiding anything ..but now you’re crying about it being transparent.. so you’re just gonna cry about something either way

Saying ai did all this for me .. shows your ignorance about ai .. you just don’t wanna accept reality at that point .. literally I was The brains behind all of This .. saying it’s ai That did this is actually giving credit to me in disguise.. ai is trained on GRAVITY, I literally Had to train ai on the framework

You're using kinematics to get 9.8 m/s². This is what I initially suspected, so thanks for confirming.

Unfortunately, kinematics isn't a replacement for gravity (or any force). It describes motion without accounting for the forces causing the motion.

If finding the acceleration of a falling object using kinematics disproves gravity, then finding the acceleration of a car proves that engines don't exist.

Kinematics is a specific branch of mechanics that describes the motion of objects without reference to the forces causing the motion. Examples of kinematics include describing the motion of a racecar moving on a track or an apple falling from a tree, but only in terms of the object’s position, velocity, acceleration, and time without describing the force from the engine of the car, the friction between the tires and the track, or the gravity pulling the apple.

Carolina

V • T • E

Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, objects and systems of groups of objects, without reference to the causes of motion (i.e., forces ).

LibreTexts

V • T • E

We are still looking for a flat Earth explanation for the cause of motion. Which physical properties are responsible for causing the motion? And how do these physical properties determine the magnitude of the force?

You’re wrong ^^^^ and can’t look at the calculator .. stop STARWMANNING .. that’s literally ALL YOU Can DO ..

Washcarso (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2026 (EDT)

Classic STRAWMAN 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you stopped reading the moment you saw the word "kinematics," quoted a textbook definition, and completely missed that kinematics was only used to establish the baseline acceleration constant (9.8). You ignored the entire rest of the calculator because it requires actual analytical work instead of a lazy hand wave. Every other tab handles the actual direction, the density contrast, the medium dependent changes, and the ELECTROSTATIC force channels. You literally depend on strawman because the calculator debunks gravity .. I proved how it works. LMAO COPE HARDER .. my calculator does exactly that .. in fact you didn’t even read the whole post where I clearly wrote HOW TO FIND THE DIRECTION .. & I wrote how it uses Electrostatic & density

So basically you didn’t even look at the calculator stopped at 9.8 & thought you did something…TRY AGAIN 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 my whole calculator is about electrostatic causing motion DOOFUS .. next time you reply actually speak about something you know .. next you time you reply & try to dismiss the calculator.. TRY BREAKING DOWN THE CALCULATOR… how ignorant can you be 😂😂😂 YOU LOST

Btw I arrived At 9.8 multiple ways .. look at the tab that says CCM .. zero kinematic .. still 9.8!.. 😂😂😂 you accuse me of dumb arguments because you only strawman then .. TALKING ABOUT GOOD FAITH .. YOURE FULL OF SHIT 😂😂😂 my calculator just proved you wrong again

The IRONY IS EVEN YOUR 9.8 doesn’t establish direction .. YOU ASSUME THE DIRECTION .. OMG you lost that one buddy 😂😂😂 because my calculator proves direction.. your 9.8m/s ^2 just assumes . You’re literally a hypocrite like I’ve always been saying

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOURE READY TO TALK SCIENCE DOGMA BOY.. You lost. Read the spreadsheet

kinematics was only used to establish the baseline acceleration constant (9.8).

This is the constant you can't account for without gravity. No one is saying other forces can't act on something at the same time.

^^ again I got To the constant without gravity , time height & velocity.. your argument is dumb 😂😂😂 you literally admitted it.. 9.8 is a scalar magnitude.. looks like you don’t even know what 9.8 at this point 😂😂😂😂

I can't find any tab that says "CCM", but if you have a seperate way of arriving at 9.8 that you think is equally valid, your explanation is inconsistent.

Washcarso (talk)

You just admitted I arrived at 9.8 without gravity .. YOUR 9.8 doesn’t establish direction either ..9.8 was never about direction .. it’s about ACCELERATION.. 😂😂😂😂😂 you can’t be this slow

What information contained in the number 9.8m/s^2 for gravity establishes DOWN as its direction?

NOTHING 😂😂😂😂 It's a scalar magnitude

Again CCM IS IN RED ..you’re playing this hypocrisy 9.8 game ..

If your whole argument is based on 9.8 you’ve been debunked .. actually attack the calculator because 9.8 is just acceleration not a direction & i proved to you, I was able to arrive at 9.8 without gravity .. YOU LITERALLY ADMITTED it .. again YOURE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF .. 😂😂😂😂 this is embarrassing for you

Again the calculator goes beyond just 9.8 .. actually have an argument this time ..TRY AGAIN

Acceleration is a vector quantity, not a scalar. The direction of 9.81 m/s² comes from the fact that masses attract each other. An object will fall down because thats the direction of the Earth's mass. The "information contained in the number" is its sign, in this case positive (+). Using the same sign convention, a negative acceleration would imply an acceleration acting upwards.

I'll happily concede that you have a calculator for predicting rates of fall that uses g = 9.8, but doesn't explain the force causing this acceleration. You have a 'gravity-free' calculator, but it doesn't disprove gravity in the slightest.

Recall this quote:

Examples of kinematics include describing the motion of a racecar moving on a track... without describing the force from the engine of the car [or] the friction between the tires and the track.

You effectively have a calculator that can predict the net acceleration of the racecar by factoring in things like friction and braking, but without describing the force from the car's engine. You measured the car's acceleration when no other forces were acting on it, and you use this value as part of finding the net acceleration.

Measuring this acceleration doesn't tell you anything about what is causing it. It doesn't tell you whether the racecar has a combustion engine or an electric motor. It doesn't tell you how many gears the gearbox has. It doesn't tell you whether it is rear wheel, front wheel, or all wheel drive. It doesn't tell you whether it uses petrol or diesel.

We're waiting for flat earthers to show an 'engine' that explains the value of 9.8 m/s²

Washcarso (talk)

Measuring this acceleration doesn't tell you anything about what is causing it. <<<<EXACTLY YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR 9.8’doesnt tell you anything about direction .. this is too easy 😂😂😂

Your statement concedes that the measured acceleration alone doesn't establish its physical cause.. again you have no point 😂😂😂

LMAO YOU JUST ADMITED nothing in your calculation for 9.8 doesn’t have a direction 😂😂😂😂” TRUST ME BRO “ is not a direction 😂😂😂 masses attract each other is not a quantitative prediction of 9.8 m/s². It supplies a proposed interaction rule

If “ masses attract each other supplies a direction” Then “opposite electric charges attract” also establishes a directional interaction.

You can’t have it both Ways just because your model is mainstream .. but all you have is 9.8 my calculator is not just 9.8 but you’re treating like it is .. if you had more calculations then 9.8 you’d see it both Ways .. but even your calculations doesn’t supply a direction

BUT CCM DOES so you’ve been debunked 😂😂😂😂

9.8 is your whole CAR .. & for me 9.8 is the pedal .. that’s the part you’re missing .. my calculator supplies the whole engine .. the pedal doesn't tell you which way the car will travel. You need the rest of the system.

“The direction comes from the fact that masses attract each other."

There is no rule in physics requiring the numerical magnitude 9.8 m/s² to contain a direction or identify its physical cause.

You are stuck on 9.8 because that’s literally all you have .. so either neither of us has a direction in 9.8 ( which CCM does ) .. you’re being a hypocrite, or my Calculator goes beyond 9.8 & supplies the direction with acceleration.. CCM HAS BOTH .. you have NOTHING 😂😂😂😂

So unless you can debunk my calculator, you just admitted you have no direction in your equations & my calculator have both rise & fall 😂😂😂

So again What specifically in the numerical value 9.8 m/s² establishes that the acceleration is directed DOWNWARD? Point to the exact information contained in that number that establishes direction.

If you don’t have a number that does .. you’re being a hypocrite & should seek therapy…you’re no longer talking physics .. again 9.8 is all you have so that’s all you can defend which is sad .. because my calculator goes beyond 9.8 … actually attack the calculator .. there’s no rule in physics that states 9.8’must have a directional interaction… because YOU DONT EVEN HAVE THAT 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 this is hilarious.. you are literally a hypocrite… & can’t attack the calculator.. which CCM ESTABLISHES everything you described & you haven’t even attacked that either

YOU LOST this one

a scientific standard has to apply equally to both sides.

Or you are no longer talking science .. simple as that .. if you are no longer talking science just acknowledge that

If you're going to repeat yourself, refer to my previous reply.

You don't have an engine, you are getting 9.8 from kinematics. Try to at least understand my point before feeding it to AI.

Your statement concedes that the measured acceleration alone doesn't establish its physical cause.

Yes, well done!

Washcarso (talk)

You literally are saying I cant Use physics in science .. which is a hell of an indictment on your model .. zero logic

it's called a gravity free calculator, not a “9.8”. That's the problem. So attack the calculator, kinematics is part of physics. You are no longer talking science.

You 9.8 you admitted doesn’t establish a direction . So what are you arguing about ?

saying I cant Use physics in science .. then your model is pseudoscience

Kinematics is literally 15% of the calculator 😂😂😂 TRY AGAIN

The calculator is the engine

Again if you don’t attack the calculator you’re just conceding my calculator establish direction & your only tactic is that I csnt Use physics ..

The kinematic equation is combined to establish direction with electrostatic & density .. that is pure 100% science

Saying I can’t use physics in science is not .

Stop being a hypocrite .. your 9.8 doesn’t establish direction

If you don't mind the absence of a force that explains where 9.8 comes from, then I won't fault your calculator.

Gravity does give direction, and I won't repeat myself as to how. Gravity plus other forces determines the direction of the resulting acceleration. Your calculator works the same way, you're just not labelling 9.8 as acceleration due to gravity.

Washcarso (talk)

If you don't mind the absence of a force that explains where 9.8 comes from, then I won't fault your calculator.<<<<< CCM HAS THAT .. ARE YOU SLOW ????

Gravity does give direction, <<<<<<<9.8 does not establish a direction

and I won't repeat myself as to how. Gravity plus other forces determines the direction of the resulting acceleration<<<< that’s an assumption, you haven’t proven that

Your calculator works the same way <<<<no it doesnt, it literally uses physics to establish acceleration & the acceleration with electrostatic forces due to density establishes the direction 9.8 is literally 15% of my calculator .. , you're just not labelling 9.8 as acceleration due to gravity<<<< i didn’t use gravity to get the acceleration 😂😂😂😂

CCM Has the force that electrostatic establishes 9.8 .. again what’s your next goal posts?

You said “masses attract each other “ that’s not a direction … What specific number or mathematical formula within 9.8 m/s² establishes that the acceleration is directed downward?

again you’re comparing 9.8 to a whole calculator that establishes direction

“I wont Repeat myself again “ Is not an answer .. you never answered that specific question ..

9.8 is a scalar magnitude not a direction .. you clearly don’t know what 9.8 is ..

You can’t attack the calculator so you’re resort to pseudoscience tactics .. First I cant Use physics & now you have a standard your model doesn’t even provide ..

’The direction of 9.81 m/s² comes from the fact that masses attract each other ’

attract is a verb, not a number. this is a phrase, not a derivation.

‘An object will fall down because that's the direction of the Earth's mass.’

this assumes the conclusion. Down is defined as toward earth's mass. that's a coordinate convention, not an output of the equation.

‘The information contained in the number is its sign, in this case positive (+)’  sign is not direction.

I could Do the same thing

‘Gravity does give direction, and I won't repeat myself as to how." "I won't repeat myself’

is a refusal to answer, not an answer.

YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT HYPOCRISY.. 😂😂😂😂😂

Again my calculator establishes direction Your 9.8 does not establish direction.. you just assume it

So What, specifically, in your calculation determines the acceleration?

What specifically in your calculation determines the direction?

Why does that mathematical combination suddenly equate to a physical acceleration caused by mass?

Kinematic answers all coherently … but your explanation doesn’t

The irony is Im the only one talking science here

What in $F = q E$ establishes a direction?

(I'm not saying your calculator uses this, but just answer the question)

By the way, please don't write over my reply. You can copy and paste what I write and add it to your own section.

Washcarso (talk)

Science is supposed to be transparent, interactive, & open to scrutiny. That means both sides can ask questions, challenge explanations, & expect their questions to be addressed, including uncomfortable ones.

What you’re doing is not a scientific rebuttal. You’re turning the discussion into a game of rhetorical chess, where you can ignore my questions while demanding answers to yours.

I can Easily answer your question which is a no brainer .. but you have to acknowledge mine so I can hold you accountable like you can do with Me so answer mine first

Your question wasn't ignored, you just didn't like my answer. Now lets hear your 'no brainer' answer to mine.

I'm trying to understand what a correct answer looks like to "how is the direction of $X$ force established?"

Washcarso (talk)

Then show me where you answered these two questions:

1. What specific calculations in your 9.8 equations determine the acceleration .. because it seems you guys put 3 words in a pot , then presto 9.8 (that you simply can get from a kinematics methodology that was already established centuries prior coincidentally)

2. Why does that mathematical combination suddenly equate to a physical acceleration caused by mass?

You never answer those specific questions .. the problem is you reduced my calculator to 9.8 & when I applied that same standard to your explanation, the restriction became a problem.. but the problem is what you originally did

You never answered those 2 questions , just answer or tell me you don’t know simple as that & I’ll respond Mr good faith

If you didn't like my first answer, then I don't have an answer for you.
The force of gravity depends on mass:

$F = G \frac{M m}{r^{2}}$

And a force creates an acceleration proportional to 1/m

$a = G \frac{M m}{m r^{2}}$

$a = G \frac{M}{r^{2}}$

So there you have it, a physical acceleration depending on M, which could represent the mass of the Earth.

Now lets see if you can answer my question, and now a second question:

What in $F = q E$ determines the direction?
Why does that mathematical combination suddenly equate to a physical acceleration caused by charge?

Remember this is your standard for accepting a force. You should be educating me on what a correct answer to these questions looks like. If you ask ask me any more questions before answering my two, this conversation will be over.

Washcarso (talk)

None of what you said gravity caused 9.8 nor acceleration .. you have to Much pride to say you don’t know Your response is the most sophisticated "trust me, bro" in physics history. your entire defense is to write out $a = G \frac{M}{r^{2}}$

& cancel out m to get  $a = G \frac{M}{r^{2}}$ . You’re literally Shuffling algebraic symbols around thinking someone won’t notice… but that  doesn’t  isolate a force. You are assuming mass causes acceleration in your very first variable, & when called out on it, you literally admitted defeat by writing "If you didn't like my first answer, then I don't have an answer for you."

Then you don’t have an answer 😂😂😂

“Remember this is your standard for accepting a force.”

Except I didn't introduce the requirement that a calculated acceleration must hav physical cause. YOU DID‼️‼️‼️ YOU INTRODUCED that requirement when criticizing my calculator & I exposed You for being a hypocrite remember, that’s how this started .. literally it’s in our history black & white 😂😂😂 you turned this into the 9.8 show . You’re literally said its My standard.. WHEN YOU INTRODUCED it 😂😂😂😂😂 WOW .. you’re insane at this point .. just proves how much your model requires special pleading

As for your strawman questions, E in F = qE is an established , empirical testable, DIRECTIONAL vector field MAP that can be isolated, measured, & shielded. Acceleration (a) is not an active physical entity,it’s a mathematical metric description of behavior over time, whether driving or falling . & your 2nd question misses the entire point. Acceleration (a) is not a force, it is a measurement, literally a scalar magnitude describing the rate of change of velocity.. You can’t isolate "acceleration" in a lab & treat it as the physical driver. It is simply the behavior resulting from a force. You have to prove the force is the cause of falling .. the acceleration is measurement of the falling not the force .. you assume that because the 9.8 describes the fall, it magically validates "mass attraction"

So you’re gonna have to actually attack the calculator .. you literally just admitted you have nothing but an algebraic shuffle to prove gravity to 9.8 ..& I never attributed a force for acceleration.. it’s literally a measurement .. YOU ASSOCIATE to a force .. but can’t prove it.. TRUST ME BRO IS NOT PROOF 😂😂😂😂

Btw my calculator describes a constant PER OBJECT based on its density & charge .. that’s why it can determine if the object goes UP OR DOWN … let’s put your 9.8 to the test vs my calculator because a helium balloon or piece of paper debunks your whole 9.8 .. that is not the constant for those items & my calculator accurately illustrates that …

You plug in a helium balloon or newspaper with accurate readings in my calculator & see how accurate it illustrates the constant based on real life & not just an arbitrary 9.8 .. your 9.8 already been debunked