The result of the experiment is 9.74 m/s2 which is 0.6% less than the theoretical acceleration value of 9.8 m/s2.
             Our result are accurate because time intervals are 1/60 s, which gives us more dots on the sheet. The more data points (time intervals) we have, the more accurate are the measurements. We also used a caliper which provided good measurements of distances between the dots.
             Also, the appartus was set up corretly on a flat floor, and the falling object has a cylindrical shape and heavy weight designed to minimize contact with air, and therefore to minimize air friction.
             If we took fewer data points, our measurement wouldn't be as accurate, while with more data points, it would give us an almost exact acceleration as theoretical. And that's because more data points give better graph, so when we calculate the slope, it gives us accurate result.
             In calculating uncertainties by brute force method, after we added and substracted 0.05 to all of our Dy's, the acceleration didn't change because the slope didn't change, although the graph of the acceleration changed position vertically. When we alternated signs, the acceleration decreased and % error increased. That's because the points of the graph are further away from the original line, which makes approximation less accurate. And finally, when we added 0.05 to first five values of Dy's and substracted 0.05 from the 5 others, the acceleration changed because of the change of the slope of the best straight line passing through the points. Therefore, acceleration decreased and % error increased.
             Air friction was minimized because of the shape and weight of the falling object, that make it faster and less exposed to air contact.
             ...