My Big GUTOE: The Dinner Plate Experiment

My Big GUTOE
(Another Simple, Easy to Do, Highly Informative, Experiment)
(© 2020, by K. P. Collins)

(Updated: 07-04-2020 Happy Independence Day!)

"The Dinner Plate Experiment" is easy to do but extremely informative with respect to the Universal Extreme Fluid (UEF).

I stumbled upon 'it' (funny quotes because there are infinite variations of "it") because of the way I wash the one and only dinner plate that I use (because, when I moved into "Far Reach" (the moniker with which I Christened my 'trailer')), I 'presumed' that, "Since my work will come forward 'any day now', I won't be in this trailer for long, so one dinner plate will be all I need", and that's the only dinner plate I unpacked, along with a 'cylindrical' soup/cereal bowl and a small "bread plate".

That was 'eighteen years ago'.

Still using the one plate.

"Oh well."

"Anyway", because I'm 'always' pretty busy, I converged upon a dinner-plate-washing method that's 'fast'. I don't have a working kitchen sink because the guy who sold the trailer to me ran the water in the kitchen sink for only long enough to just-not-fill the slow-draining drain pipe, and I was taken advantage of - 'fooled' - by that.

So, after every meal, I use my bathroom sink to wash my dishes. My dinner plate just barely fits into the little sink and under the "shorty" faucet.

But, "no matter". Having to use this bathroom sink turned out to be a fortunate thing.

The 'sides' of the sink have a 'square' aspect with rounded edges, which invited me to wash my dinner plate by 'filling' the plate with 'hot water' after I'd wiped the 'gunk' left on it from my meal. 'then' I'd squirt a fine stream of Dawn™ detergent into the 'water'. Although I use another detergent that suds less when I wash my slow cooker "pot" (because washing the large pot in the small sink is a hassle even with low-suds), I use Dawn for everything else, at first, because 'one day' while I was grocery shopping, seeing the brand name, Dawn, while I was in the cleaning-stuff aisle, I got 'nostalgic' with respect to my 'long ago' Junior Prom, the theme of which was Dawn (as in, "the dawning of our Senior 'year'"; I was on the "Prom Committee", and failed to deliver a 'light show' that I'd said I would - it was 'supposed to' shine a 'dawning light' transition into the gym as the Prom wrapped up, but the concept was ahead of the equipment to which I 'then' had access. My failure still lingers 'hard' in my 'memory'.) After I started using Dawn, I continued to use it, at first because I liked its 'blue' color, and, 'shortly thereafter', because I found its fluid dynamics to be fascinating and really useful. All of this while using the first bottle of it that I purchased.

Back to my "dishwashing method". After I'd squirted my fine stream of detergent into the 'hot water' in the plate, I'd balance the plate on the 'square' side of the sink, and just let it soak while the detergent did most of the work in cleaning it, which allowed me to get back to work-work with only a minimal delay, returning 'later' to give the plate a final swirling-rinse whenever I happened to be in the bathroom again.

With each such plate washing, I came to increasingly enjoy observing the detergent's fluid dynamics, which is why I tend to 'always' use 'too much' of it.

I encourage you to do your own "dinner plate" experiment, and when you do, to pay close attention to the way that your own fine stream of Dawn always wiggles back and forth as you dispense it into your own 'hot water'. (Up to a point, the finer your stream, the better your experimental results will be in this part of the experiment. If your detergent stream is too fine, the detergent disperses too rapidly, upon merging with the 'hot water', for the 'wiggles' to be observable. So keep your streams "fine", but not too fine, while doing this part of the experiment. A variation of the experiment can be performed by varying the temperature of the 'water'. 'cold water' permits finer streams of detergent, but the resultant 'wiggles' become almost too small to distinguish, and you want to see the 'wiggles' clearly.)

The 'back and forth' (harmonic) 'wiggling' occurs in exactly the same way that so-called "electromagnetic radiation" ('em') 'wiggles' in the UEF - in exactly the same way that the waveform of all 'em' is instantiated and 'sustained', including in how & why 'em' is "emitted" from SSW harmonics (which was (incompletely) explained in the first WebLog I 'published', and 'completed' below.)

'detergent' and 'em', same-old, same-old, in either case, with direction-velocity that is 100% determined with respect to the max-eph dynamic, Be-Cause, UEF ephemerance always decreases as the 'local' max-eph threshold is 'moved toward', and always increases as the same threshold is 'moved away from', which, taken together, results in UEF ephemerance always 'hovering around' the 'local' max-eph threshold.

Overall, the UEF 'movement', inherent, always converges relative to ('hovers around') the one max-eph dynamic, Be-Cause, as the 'local' UEF 'moves toward' the 'local' max-eph threshold, it always becomes increasingly less free to move (its ephemerance decreases; becomes more-restricted), which, to degree of 'moving toward', always results in the 'local' UEF's 'moving' increasingly in any direction other than the direction in which the 'local' max-eph threshold is being approached, which ephemerance increase that occurs as the UEF 'moves away from' the 'local' max-eph threshold always results in a decrease in the ephemerance (a UEF compaction) of the 'locally' surrounding UEF. The 'secondary' 'local' max-eph threshold is increased by the UEF 'moving away from' the 'primary' 'local' max-eph threshold, back and forth, ad infinitum, Be-Cause, the UEF is continuous - which is whence comes the ubiquitous max-eph determined alternating concentricities that I discussed, in my first WebLog, with respect to the "temperature wave" UEF dynamics.

Which is 'also' whence comes the always occurring harmonic motion of 'both' the fine stream of Dawn 'and' so-called "electromagnetic radiation", including frequency-wavelength that is always 'instantaneously' coupled exactly to quantity of UEF-'movement'/volume which varies nonlinearly throughout all of the above UEF harmonics. (This nonlinearly varying UEF-quantity/volume ratio constitutes 100% of what accelerator researchers actually study. That is, they are studying the relative rates at which 'movement' of relatively high ephemerance UEF does, in fact, compact (decrease the ephemerance of) it's 'locally' surrounding UEF - which is whence 'comes' the illusion of 'particles in the particle zoo'. Because the UEF is continuous, this ratio varies continuously, and the number of nonlinear UEF-quantity/volume compactions that are possible is infinite. So the only way in which accelerator studies will ever converge to yield understanding of physical dynamics is as above, with respect to the 'action' of the UEF.)

In 'both' the detergent 'and' 'em' cases, it's the max-eph dynamic that determines everything in the physical phenomena, which physical 'cases' are, at the fundamental level of the UEF, literally the same one thing: UEF 'moving' in exact accord with the one max-eph dynamic, and nothing else.

All of which is important, so remember it.

It's not only 100% of what underpins the illusion of 'constant c', but 'also' the only thing that underpins 'stability' in Physical Reality.

In the universal UEF-expansion epoch in which you and I exist, even though 'life' has not been much of a friend to it, the UEF max-eph dynamic is a Friend to Life.

There's a funny story about the way I came to do "the Dinner Plate Experiment".

I bumped the plate being washed, as above, while I was washing something else in my little sink, and was immediately fascinated with the harmonics that I could hear in the sound being emitted by the dinner plate as it underwent small rocking motion on the flat side of the sink.

I could literally hear the sub-harmonics 'sliding' through one another as the overall waveform of the sound varied continuously, the plate's rocking, and the 'sound' emitted by the plate's rocking, periodically 'stopping' and 'starting' again, as the relative motions of the sub-harmonics in the fluid dynamics varied continuously, all in a way that's physically coupled to the one max-eph dynamic, and to nothing else - which is 100% of what so-called "interference" physically is.

I saw the correlation to the SSW harmonics right 'then' and there, and wanting to understand how & why these dinner-plate harmonics were being generated, I 'dropped' everything else, and began doing "the Dinner Plate Experiment" immediately.

That was 'many years ago', and I'm still doing the Dinner Plate Experiment every 'time' there's a plate or bowl that needs to be washed. It's an infinitely-long story, but the experiment just keeps on giving Truly meaning-filled results.

So I encourage you to have your own fun in doing this simple, easy to do, and highly informative experiment which has two parts. Do the 'wiggles' part first, then do the 'sound' harmonics part.

Here are some pertinent things:

1. Keep your streams fine, but not overly fine, and impart direction-velocity to them in a single motion having 'constant' velocity. (You won't get 'wiggles' if you vary velocity, here.) I've come to prefer 'circular' motions because they minimize the 'kinks' in the 'wiggles'. 

2. Balance your plate critically on the edge of your sink, taking care to 'sustain' its being on the edge of the sink and not crashing into the sink.

3. Slightly depress and release the 'side' of the plate that's extended over the sink.

4. do step 3 in various ways by altering the (always slight) degree to which you depress the sink 'side' of the plate.

5. You can also alter the harmonics you'll hear by varying the amount of fluid in your plate. More fluid, slower (lower-frequency, longer-wavelength) harmonics, Be-Cause, UEF ephemerance decreases - becomes increasingly restricted - as a nonlinear function of the quantity of 'water' that is 'contained within' the volume-'containing' geometry of the 'plate' (funny quotes, in this phrase because everything physically 'in' the 'plate' and the 'water' is 100% UEF), 'and', Be-Cause, the UEF entrainment dynamics that I explained in an earlier WebLog increasingly slow the 'movement' of the SSW harmonics that comprise the greater quantity of 'water', all of which slowing occurs solely in the form of UEF refraction dynamics, which is 100% of what occurs in all refraction dynamics - what so-called "index of refraction" physically is is relative UEF ephemerance - which is what you saw with your own eyes while you were doing the "bowl" trial of thee Johnson's Baby Shampoo™ Experiment. (You did it, right?) Such relative UEF ephemerance refraction dynamics permeate Physical Reality at all scales, including (for instance) with respect to 'the' so-called "bending of light" as 'the em' ('light') passes 'near' a so-called "massive object", which is 100% UEF refraction with zero so-called, non-physically-real, "gravitational attraction").

(With respect to hearing the harmonics, detergent is optional, but, otherwise, including the detergent enhances observing.)

What you'll hear will be harmonics that are generated in exactly the same way in which the Spherical Standing Wave (SSW) harmonics I explained in my first WebLog are instantiated and 'sustaned' in/by the UEF. ('except for' an artificially-instantiated 'feature' of the experimental design that, in the dinner-plate case, the positive angle that the 'edge' of the "plate" makes with respect to the horizontal plane of 'the plate' that 'contains' the fluid that 'contains' the rest of the fluid, where it's all fluid in the SSW case (see the first WebLog I 'published'), 'and' that, when 'em' is emitted by an SSW, it's always emitted as a Spherical Wave Shell (SWS) that's 'uniformly' 'squeezed out of' a compaction-phase SSW harmonic at the instantaneous radius of an SSW sub-harmonic, which 'instantaneous' SSW sub-harmonic radius is what determines the waveform ('frequency'-'wavelength') of the 'em' that is emitted, Be-Cause, emission does not occur "instantaneously", so the waveforms of emissions are determined in the radius change that occurs as UEF is being 'squeezed out of' an SSW, which, further, is what physically underpins the illusion of so-called "photons". ("Absorption" occurs at almost, but not exactly (see below), the same radii when UEF is 'squeezed into' an expansion-phase SSW harmonic.)

When 'a photon is detected', what's actually 'detected' is the interaction of the relatively restricted UEF 'contained within' the portion of an SWS that 'instantaneously' 'merges with' the UEF 'contained within' the SSW harmonics that comprise the 'detector'.

What all so-called "detections' physically are is the net UEF 'containment' threshold 'spilling over' that occurs during such fleeting SWS-UEF + SSW-UEF 'interactive' dynamics (which are always (eventually) self-stabilizing, Be-Cause, the UEF always moves in the direction of max-eph that is universal WDB2T.) It's this 'spilling-over' of UEF with respect to the 'instantaneous' 'containment' dynamics of the SSW harmonics that comprise a 'detector' that constitutes what is physically 'detected' by a 'detector', and which can drive an indicator such as the leaves of an 'electroscope', and, through 'amplification' via an externally directed UEF 'flow', the needle of a meter, the display of an oscilloscope, or a digital 'track' display, the last of which displays super-'containment'-threshold UEF 'movement' dynamics relative to the max-eph dynamic, never 'particle' "tracks".

If, for instance, the 'instantaneous' phases of the SSW harmonics that 'instantaneously' comprise a 'detector' are out of phase with an SWS, the SWS will pass right through the SSWs that comprise the 'detector' without exceeding of the UEF ephemerance threshold at which 'detection' is instantiated - hence, without being 'detected' - which is whence comes 100% of the illusion of ray-like 'point photons' in double-slit photographic emulsion 'and/or' 'em'-cell 'detection' experiments. Although SWSs have vanishingly-different inner and outer radii, 'point-like photons' are an illusion because, since the UEF is everywhere continuous, including 'within' its dynamics, all that ever changes with respect to any SSW's 'containment' dynamics is (1) the 'local' gradient of UEF compaction that is what WDB2T physically is 'and' (2) 'local' UEF 'movement' direction, with 2 being 100% determined in 1.

The UEF i/o dynamics that occur with respect to any SSW are always occurring continuously. When an SWS has been emitted, all that ever changes (what changes that 'terminates' the "emission") is the direction of UEF i/o 'movement' relative to an SSW from radially-outward to radially-inward - from "emission" to "absorption" - which direction changes always occur continuously. Which is how & why it's necessary to use funny quotes around 'instantaneous'. What constitutes a 'detector' varies continuously as a function of the SSW harmonics that comprise the 'detector'.

An illusion of 'discontinuity' arises from the fact that absorption-correlated, radially-inward UEF 'motions' are "negative" with respect to the 'spilling-over' of UEF that drives 'detection' (as above). No 'spilling-over' of UEF, no 'detection', which is also in the illusion of 'constant c'.

'ghost images' of such radially-inward UEF 'movement' can, nevertheless, be pieced together via analyses of accelerator data, because, for instance, 100% of what has been referred to as "antimatter" is comprised solely of compaction (radially-inward) phase UEF 'movement' 'and' 100% of what has been referred to as "matter" is comprised solely of expansion (radially-outward) phase UEF 'movement'.

So-called "matter" 'and' 'antimatter' "annihilate" to the degree that their phases are 'instantaneously' oppositely-correlated when 'they meet', Be-Cause, 'antimatter' is an SSW 'instantaneously' in a compaction-phase 'and' 'matter' is an SSW 'instantaneously' in an expansion-phase, and when oppositely-correlated SSW phases 'merge' their 'instantaneously' oppositely-directed UEF 'motions' 'cancel' each other's SSW 'containment' dynamics - 'poof' - with their formerly 'contained' 'excess' UEF (the net 'resultant' UEF having ephemerance that is not 'instantaneously' the 'same' as 'local' UEF ephemerance) dispersing (dissipating with respect to 'containment') in a way that's exactly coupled to the one max-eph dynamic.

I've not (yet) calculated the relative rates, but can say with Certainty that the so-called ~1 part in 10⁹ "matter" to "antimatter" ratio 'discrepancy' can only arise, Be-Cause, SSW compaction ('antimatter') phases are ~1 part in 10⁹ more fleeting (in the same ratio) with respect to SSW expansion ('matter') phases, which compaction phase to expansion phase rate differential, when verified, will be a significant number with respect to (for instance) the "emission" - "absorption" frequency delta that I referred to above, and through which this compaction - expansion rate differential can, in principle, be 'easily' verified.

Completely analogous SSW 'containment' cancellation dynamics occur in so-called "nuclear detonations", 'except that', in 'them', formerly entrained UEF is 'also' released upon a partial cancellation of 'containment' dynamics. This is important. Much more than non-physically-real so-called "nuclei" are cancelled in so-called "nuclear" detonations.

Returning to the dinner plate experiment, when you gently rock your plate, the 'water-detergent' (the UEF) 'contained within' it moves in a standing wave, replete with harmonics that, although they are superficially 'contained within different' geometry, are (except for the 'containing'-angle, above) exactly the same as the standing wave harmonics of SSWs.

Be-Cause, in both cases, the max-eph dynamic is the sole determinant of everything that physically occurs (including with respect to the 'containing'-angle, when the UEF dynamics are traced through the SSWs that comprise 'the plate'.)

(The 'presumption' that dynamics that occur 'within' "plate" and "sphere" 'geometries are different' derives in yet another illusion that's eliminated in Tapered Harmony (to the benefit of Mathematicians everywhere, in the same way as occurs with respect to the "many-body problem" Maths that I explained in the first WebLog I 'published'), Be-Cause, regardless of superficial 'appearances', all UEF dynamics that occur 'within' any physically-instantiated "geometry" are determined solely, exactly, 'and' completely in the one max-eph dynamic, and nothing else.)

I've not tried to do so because my bathroom 'laboratory' is so small that it'd be all "crashing"-ness if I did 'try', but it's a Certainty that the UEF refraction dynamics that I explained in my earlier, "Videos", WebLog will be easily observable if a good source of 'light' is shined at the necessary angle with respect to the 'sloshing'-harmonics of the water-detergent and your eyes (or video camera).

That is, the dinner-plate harmonics, which are exactly analogous to the SSW harmonics, will become visually observable.

Some of what will be readily observable in the refraction dynamics, for instance, is that every 'interference' pattern' that occurs in every double slit experiment, activated wave tank, every x-ray crystallography image, etc. ad infinitum, is actually a dynamically instantiated partial physical map of relative UEF ephemerance at loci in Physical Reality, with the UEF being disclosed in a way that's right there, plain to see, at the 'boundaries between' 'material phases'.

The UEF ephemerance dynamics occur in 3D, but what's routinely observable are the net SSW 'interaction' dynamics that were explained with respect to 'detectors' and 'detection' above. Hence the easily observed "partial" mapping of UEF ephemerance that one can see with one's own eyes.

"Waves" do not "cancel" one another. The 'local' UEF ephemerance dynamics, that are what any "wave" physically is, just 'instantaneously' sum to being counterbalanced at relatively decreased (relatively restricted) UEF ephemerance, which "counterbalancing" can occur at any degree of relative ephemerance, including at extremely restricted degrees of ephemerance. Which is how & why it's nonsensical to say that 'waves cancel one another'. Waves do not "cancel one another". Their 'local' ephemerances combine. As was explained above with respect to 'nuclear' detonations, 'containment' dynamics cancel. Waves counterbalance their 'instantaneous' 'local' UEF ephemerances. 

Furthermore, the continuity of the UEF is also right there, plain to see with one's own eyes, in every 'interference pattern' that occurs in Physical Reality, Be-Cause, it's easily verified that there is nothing in the 'interfering waves' that actually "stands still" even though there is an illusion that the 'interference pattern' stands still as a "standing wave" that, with a geometrical transformation, is exactly analogous to the Spherical Standing Wave harmonics (SSWs) 'and' UEF i/o that were explained in the first WebLog I 'published'.)

So I encourage folks who have better 'laboratories' than exists here at Far Reach to do this UEF refraction trial (which, again, yields the same stuff as in what's referred to as "Compton scattering", which is actually "Compton UEF Refraction".)

For myself, hearing the dinner-plate harmonics is sufficient because I can literally See the harmonics in the auditory waveform.

I've been able to so See since a Young Child because I Loved to be with my Father in his cellar woodworking shop, but he was a "stern" man who didn't like being disturbed while he was working. So, wanting to know what he was building, typically out of skid wood that he'd scavanged - making almost anything out of almost nothing - I learned how to 'fly' the yet-to-be-assembled pieces of his projects together in my mind from where they lay, scattered about in the area of the cellar surrounding his workshop.

Looking back, it's 'funny' how his "to-be-finished project" was as 'a nucleus' relative to the scattered 'surrounding' constituents, the twain mapped in the 'flying together of the pieces'.

'contained' and 'containing'.

Dynamically.

Ever since I so Learned at my Father's side, I See everything in the same, fly-it-together-in-the-fitting way, in which 'the fitting' is determined in the one max-eph dynamic, which I'm sure is what Isaac Newton was actually referring to when he wrote in his Principia about ~"getting all the rubs out", which is what achieving max-eph physically is.

No matter the 'sensory' form in which "the information" arrives.

A Gift of my Father that only Gives More.

Even to you.

With my Father's Love, on Father's Day, 2020,

k. p. collins