Jump to content

Restricted: Difference between revisions

From Flerf Wiki
← Older editNewer edit →
Washcarso (talk | contribs)
1,331 edits
→"Gravity-free" calculator: making gallery for document
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 1: Line 1:
{{infobox
|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]].
The GRAVITY FREE CALCS HAVE BEEN UPDATED .. so you are no longer focused on being accurate . It’s obsession over a person for a disagreement. Sick behavior .. you realizing you are proving your model isn’t science right ??? Are you okay Oscar . Do you want a page about you .. cause that’s the next movie


==Arguments and tactics==
He has pushed truly some of the dumbest flat-earth arguments on the planet.


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 {{wp|faraday cage|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.
Hi, I'm a glober & I have dogma, and it's bad. So bad I stalk pages of people I don't even know and made a page because I obviously need to PROTECT MY MODEL. Why does it need this much protection if it was genuinely falsifiable? Because it's not. I take it right to the heart, and I'll gladly do it again because I have dogma. Science is encouraged to be challenged, but not this model, because by repeatedly updating a profile I don't know about the person, it's proving it's pseudoscience every time I loop back around and post misinformation about someone I've never met. You see how sick that is. I write about people I don't even know their first name because I'm a glober & my model is unfalsifiable, meaning I'm so blinded I think there's no possible way the photos can be faked. Even though “it’s photoshop but it has to be” I don't care about that. Space is the place I've never been to, but I imagine it so hard it's like I've been there. I depend on strawman arguments & being a victim because my dogma says so.
 
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).
And yes, I'll do it again. Again & again until my unfalsifiable model remains unfalsifiable.
 
He consistently demonstrates all three [[laws of flerf]] to an exceptional standard.
It's literally dogma. If my model were actual science, it could be genuinely challenged & encouraged to be, but of course it can't be challenged. I HAVE TO protect it like a guard dog, because it's dogma. That's what dogma does: it ignores logic and lets raw emotion run the entire framework because it's a fragile pseudoscience.
 
=="Gravity-free" calculator==
I promise you, I'll do it again. I'll watch him & race back over here to change everything back just like I always do, proving the entire point. I have to protect the model.
 
Recently, Restricted has claimed to have developed a fully functioning calculator for predicting rates of fall without using gravity.  
UPDATE…..The calculation architecture has been completely UPDATED and decoupled from hydrostatics, buoyancy, and density metrics. The model no longer relies on those calculations at all, yet it CONTINUES to output the exact same baseline acceleration results. THE CALCULATOR IS MORE USER FRIENDLY & stronger than ever now. As a glober I will have to pretend that's not the case because that's my only line of defense. I'll say something like he hasn't shown it yet. That's because I can't find his page to ask.
 
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}}".
This completely shatters this page's recycled critiques. They claim electrostatics is 'not strong enough,' even though it is a trillion times stronger than gravity. That's an admission that makes their fiat force a smart dust by their own metrics. Gravity remains entirely unisolated and unshieldable, whereas electrostatic forces can be directly manipulated and tested in real world environments.
 
<!--https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IIem4z-BvLhE7NMXeIlthiQ6M-_77etLBG0u6j_V-Mo/edit?gid=1261802340#gid=1261802340-->
Because gravity cannot be independently isolated, only ASSUMED, it operates as an unfalsifiable placeholder, chalkboard math, & the name isn't even restricted. That's how slow they are, still clinging on to the past.
<s>Link to the calculator on Google Sheets</s> (The link is no longer being shared)
 
WHAT'S NEXT LOL? Is more cope & repeated strawman because I've been triggered to the point that a wiki page is my new safe haven lmao.
He also provided a document titled ''Gravity-Free Calculator:Standard Operating Rules & Constraints''. It has been uploaded to this wiki:
<gallery>
Calculations 100% don't need gravity & it's more automated & user friendly than before. I can't latch on to the calculations, but I will because I have nothing left to cope with.
File:Restricted_calculator_rules_1.jpeg|Page 1
 
I have to strawman to make my point. Because I can't use actual points. I rely on strawman arguments btw.
File:Restricted_calculator_rules_2.JPG|Page 2
 
File:Restricted_calculator_rules_3.JPG|Page 3
</gallery>
 
===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.
 
His own document says the calculations don't work in a vacuum:
<blockquote>The active density-pressure equation is bounded strictly within positive medium regimes (&rho;<sub>m</sub> > 0). Exact absolute vacuum conditions sit outside the current operational domain.<ref>[https://www.flerf.info/index.php/File:Restricted_calculator_rules_3.JPG Page 3] of his document</ref></blockquote>
 
==Use of AI==
[[File:Restricted list AI heliocentric falsifiability.jpeg|thumb|Screenshot of Gemini Restricted posted to support the idea that the {{wp|heliocentric model}} is "unflasifiable".]]
 
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.''
 
==Other info==
* Thinks the Sun is in the clouds
* Adheres to [[flerfspective]]
 
==References==
 
[[Category:American flerfs]]

Revision as of 19:23, 27 September 2026

The GRAVITY FREE CALCS HAVE BEEN UPDATED .. so you are no longer focused on being accurate . It’s obsession over a person for a disagreement. Sick behavior .. you realizing you are proving your model isn’t science right ??? Are you okay Oscar . Do you want a page about you .. cause that’s the next movie


Hi, I'm a glober & I have dogma, and it's bad. So bad I stalk pages of people I don't even know and made a page because I obviously need to PROTECT MY MODEL. Why does it need this much protection if it was genuinely falsifiable? Because it's not. I take it right to the heart, and I'll gladly do it again because I have dogma. Science is encouraged to be challenged, but not this model, because by repeatedly updating a profile I don't know about the person, it's proving it's pseudoscience every time I loop back around and post misinformation about someone I've never met. You see how sick that is. I write about people I don't even know their first name because I'm a glober & my model is unfalsifiable, meaning I'm so blinded I think there's no possible way the photos can be faked. Even though “it’s photoshop but it has to be” I don't care about that. Space is the place I've never been to, but I imagine it so hard it's like I've been there. I depend on strawman arguments & being a victim because my dogma says so.

And yes, I'll do it again. Again & again until my unfalsifiable model remains unfalsifiable.

It's literally dogma. If my model were actual science, it could be genuinely challenged & encouraged to be, but of course it can't be challenged. I HAVE TO protect it like a guard dog, because it's dogma. That's what dogma does: it ignores logic and lets raw emotion run the entire framework because it's a fragile pseudoscience.

I promise you, I'll do it again. I'll watch him & race back over here to change everything back just like I always do, proving the entire point. I have to protect the model.

UPDATE…..The calculation architecture has been completely UPDATED and decoupled from hydrostatics, buoyancy, and density metrics. The model no longer relies on those calculations at all, yet it CONTINUES to output the exact same baseline acceleration results. THE CALCULATOR IS MORE USER FRIENDLY & stronger than ever now. As a glober I will have to pretend that's not the case because that's my only line of defense. I'll say something like he hasn't shown it yet. That's because I can't find his page to ask.

This completely shatters this page's recycled critiques. They claim electrostatics is 'not strong enough,' even though it is a trillion times stronger than gravity. That's an admission that makes their fiat force a smart dust by their own metrics. Gravity remains entirely unisolated and unshieldable, whereas electrostatic forces can be directly manipulated and tested in real world environments.

Because gravity cannot be independently isolated, only ASSUMED, it operates as an unfalsifiable placeholder, chalkboard math, & the name isn't even restricted. That's how slow they are, still clinging on to the past.

WHAT'S NEXT LOL? Is more cope & repeated strawman because I've been triggered to the point that a wiki page is my new safe haven lmao.

Calculations 100% don't need gravity & it's more automated & user friendly than before. I can't latch on to the calculations, but I will because I have nothing left to cope with.

I have to strawman to make my point. Because I can't use actual points. I rely on strawman arguments btw.

Retrieved from "https://www.flerf.info/index.php?title=Restricted&oldid=12436"