The fundaments of geometry maintain at proportion; however,
proportions yet maintain themselves within limits - so as to make for a workable industry
in nature, which shows perspectives for its features as standpoints for schooled
thought, from which then to argue their cause of best-praise-suiting, for the worship of
their beliefs, that humankind might argue to repesent their cause.
The size of the universe limits: Where gravity limits, weight best suits those proportions as are lesser in the design of structure than certain limits, and materials limit themselves under such weight constrictions so as to show upper limits in each such material as possible. Arches and buttresses in building cathedrals cannot be too large; bridges cannot be too large; skyscrapers can only with certain technologies be so tall; and, ships can only be so large before materials and their buoyancy limit their size.
The size of human agency limits: Where manipulability of agency of designer limits (before the silicon revolution), precision best suits the greater proportion clockwork as fingers limit the size of manipulability of parts, as Galileo noted in the opening of his Dialogue (long before the modern day witch-hunts of hackers in the realm of micro-computers and the internet).
Using the analogy of escape velocity to guide us, we can see that there are conceptual limitations going on which demand that an object if designed well ought to withstand its function, and within obvious design constraints concerning endurability and weight. But it hasn't always been rocket science deciding these such concepts are best chosen for in limiting archicture. What are the various limitations which, questions, which when striven toward their answers, have driven forward the design of more earthly things? Archways: if it’s going to stay up as a bridge; if it’s going to stay up as a buttress; if it’s going to stay up as an arch. Towers: if it’s going to stay up as a skyscraper. Buoyant craft: ‘Least weight’ and ‘greatest endurance’ describe logistical limitations as must be worked with in designing aeronautic and space crafts, respecting choice materials as are available to invent and design with. ‘Gravity designed in the universe’ - would seem the conclusive limitation, but where new materials are discovered this limitation would seem to be but contingent upon a necessary relationship lurking besides.
Physical bias - the perspective of
storms on spheres and universal ratios
Gravity builds certain sized spheres and certain sized storms or weather systems on those spheres. If as a result of a gravitational force field certain sized objects emerge, then those such objects are expressions of something fundamental to gravity. The size and mass of types of stars are limited; you might not have more storms on a sphere than as are normally observable, and not more in a season than as would normally be observable, but that exceptions would arise. Why then do the norms exist? What’s so special about a sphere of given size that it ought only carry so many storms, at one time, and per season? What ratios arise that this be an expression of the mixture of forces which are responsible for all things in the universe as anthropically observable?
Corporeal bias - The perspective of the ingenuity of nature and universal ratios
Nature uses certain types of materials and certain types of tissues emerge from the swamp evolved. Ants carry leaves a hundred times their own weight. What makes ants legs and jaws so strong?
Sure geometry maintains at proportion but nature and spheres
are always intriguing in their such limitations to make such that it would seem
to interest even after all necessity and congtingency would be argued for the
pure and applied science as a mathematics, that the area still yet be a subject
for much political swaying sides to stake in those such proportions, however
falsely, but that it would seem open to discussion, or worse taken by
presumption to be a stronghold of such political bias that proportions exist at
all.
A square is a square is a square: whether as a postage stamp, a football field, or as the four corners of the globe. That a fourth square at the four solstice and equinox points of the earth's orbit might seem roughly to exist, doesn’t mean that the resolve of any dispute at any of each other proportion is unto any another God, and ruler of geometry, besides that is sought its praise in His faith. What makes those ant legs so strong in nature?
Realmic bias - The perspective of a higher Realm and proportion, toward which all things evolve within their limits
The higher proportion is that toward which evolution strives to spur us on. The higher Realm is also that toward which evolution strives to spur us on. Higher stronger faster traits of character of competitors in natures hunting grounds make for more durable species in natural selection. Higher than the ocean is the beach, higher than the beach the land and air above; and higher than these then awaits space , and no less a challenge than previous realms to be conquered for the little microbial grubs first climbing out of the swamp.
Divine bias - The perspective of a higher Lord and force, toward which all things evolving give praise endlessly
The higher Lord is that toward which our faith strives to spur us on. The higher force is also that toward which competition strives to spur us on, not to mistake His as its only due rightful praise. The mysteries of competition and evolution are not yet finished discussing that such content of their respective fields that intellect seems bound yet by any resolve. The discussion to politicize the greater proportion would seem to show scope, but perhaps yet in a somewhat presumptuous standing, if at all as outright so assuming it. Spheres and storms, in their physical environments, describe features, as evolution shows reflecting in a Nature, and in such materials as are hers to choose from, when designing life. We are made in the image of a higher God. A higher Realm and higher proportion limit their progress, as things evolve, to give praise to a higher Lord and higher force. That which praises Him better, or praises better His nature , as best representative of those such higher realm ideas, seems to do better in natural selection, albeit as a butterfly yet outlives a dinosaur, despite its fragile, frail physical frame compared to that such brute force and bulk of tyranny.
Of Spheres and their storms, higher Lords and their higher forces, ruling; of Nature and its materials, higher Realms and higher proportions, evolving; proportions limit things in the universe progressing, anthropically, to seem only as they might ever be observable. Despite the many infinities and their limitations in standpoints and perspectives of Physical Corporeal Realmic Divine biases as might discuss their such politic endlessly, The Fundaments of Geometry Maintain at Proportion.
