The Character of Commerce as it conquers Physics with a buyout c.1900.

get the pot heads out of the way i think it was an explosion caused the creation story, they're the only ones who would spot it and i need an alibi for my economy...

is there anything dodgier than dark matter, inflation you go first, and expansion tell us all about it since - after the nigga, i'll venture...if god lies down and tells us about his breakdown, i can subjugate him for a profit. nobody notice how dodgedy this mood seems. light will be here soon. it has traversed the greatest chasm in space and time ever knowable as imaginably visible in the observable universe. relativity knows what to do. its prepared a welcome. i know relativity. time is time itself. see i'm an expert. light, you ought behave. see -its its welcoming party. is the big bang. its obvious. god lie down and tell us about your breakdown, as you're the most proud being as ever could possibly be imagined...and light - if you're tired, simply - tough - you ought behave.

get the potheads out of the way - i think it was an explosion. caused the creation story. i think it was 15 miles that way - i'm sure of it - or was it the other way, it felt like a siren - it sounded like bang - but then i whized by like a doppler effect, or was a hubble. i'm a reliable witness - it was 15 miles that way - i think it was an explosion. or was it a siren? but lie down there god and tell us about your break down. lets subjugate the fucker while he's not even - oh there you are...light ought behave...i'm a relativist. i can tell. time is time itself. see. i'm an expert. light - you ought behave. there's a welcoming committee. greatest chasm ever possibly knowable achievable in space and time, across which no greater observable distance can be achieved - and light gets here finally and we say - light - you ought behave.

that's thinking. it takes the wisest amongst us to tell, every man already told it, doesn't believe it. but i'm telling it - i believe it. and you'll believe through me that i believe it - but i won't tell you it. a duck on a pond will quack it instead. i don't have to tell you it. duck quacking truths are more believeable than astrophysics. can the ripple on the pond lie? its the edge of known ripple. on the pond. it must be. its expanding.

and if it gets to the edge of the pond, we might run out of money. quick through inflation periods after it. no wait - an expansion period was due also. shit. duck quacking where is our bread on the table. we were supposed to have light spheres, not life buoys. radii of pond ripples were supposing to be emulative

look at this - light you ought behave - no wait - yeah 100,000 years and don't ask darkness - but no - wait until free speech - finds out that it has taken billions of years - and then ignore it - light you ought - wait now wait - shit there's competition here. dark fucking everything. its all very dark when its all very dark. but then tis a singularity- and then it wants to have duck quacking babies. but we already made the - we quacked the first one for a ripple - do you think you can avoid the ripple duck or am i subjugating your god just a bit too truthfully - darn dick

you don't like it when being told to break down - maybe the bread wasn't supposed to be white. maybe the table was the only thing on time. contra fucking -dictions still tell your glory god

who's telling the serpent in eden while the serpent in eden is in 2014 not in the fucking bible. ye have to read something different than suggestion into authority - suggestion: its not authority - its anderity - the story of others - not the story of self - your cops authority is no authority. its the oxymoron as which is the opposite of authority - and yet - get the potheads out of the way - i think it was an explosion as caused the creation story.

and you want the terrible twos you stole the story from - as your some sort of pond joke

because you can't hack a story already inspired - you want to skip the duck move along to the snail and on the seesaw - and the seesaw goes up and down - but if it goes up and down too quickly the snail will pass a century - slowly does it - slowly - a century passes so quickly for a snail - and the snail is only discovering that the see saw is going either in one direction or another...if it finds out that the direction is ascertainable it might start worrying that it is either up or down. but that it finds out there is any leverage and ascertains the length of the board of the seesaw - so a century going by comparatively in such snail schools of thought - it might configure the mathematics to loop the loop right through the ground - and yet come back to the same place - and so announce this - the universe is gonna go either up or down and back to the same place but not before looping in a great big circle because we've worked it out - the board is either of a certain length or a certain width but as i make my way over to either corner - so i can tell more clearly - its either of a certain leverage about a central point - or its either going up or down - i've worked it out - we're gonna go full circle. its a see saw. but the snail can't tell. its stuck to the side of it - thinking if he works it out for certain that it is either going up or down - then he might go all the way around - if down - through the ground - if up up side down - he's work it out - he's a snail. on a seesaw - using mathematics.

why else would god invent snails on the back of seesaws unless to work out mathematics. the're hardly there to feed the ducks.

It Does Not Serve Any Purpose To Corrupt The Creation Story To Include Wealth.

Why did anyone ever ask themselves the question of whether black holes existed in the first place? Is it like dating the universe and we're making God out not to be a liar by adding a scientific version as update to the fairy tale biblical version of its number? Nobody ever asked us to date the universe. We should be wary of our wonder, and find honourable cause, besides than in disproving that God might be a liar. That isn't honourability at work in any cause to inspire looking. We might just satisfy ourselves with the first non-lie as comes along, without even the wonder of asking ourselves is it possible to date the universe in any finite scale.

Einstein predicts the fabric of space-time ought cause warping around objects of great mass bending the light coming around the edge of the disc of the sun, and this is proven by observation. Do we think God changed the universe to suit Einstein, and that all we might need to is extend his theory to include predictions of our own, and God might just get up and do the work to suit our predictions? Why did we ever propose black holes?

See that light there. The way its coming around the sun? What if, yeah, what if the gravity of the sun were so great...now I don't mean so great that The Earth would be swallowed up immediately, and we might not get to ask the 'do you believe?' question, which I know The Church has regarded as so important in their unquestioned faith - but if you were to stand on Jupiter, and withstand it, having no surface, and withstand its pressure being too great anyway -should there indeed be anywhere to stand- but just trust in that question that free speech gave you, as free speech saved democracy and capitalism, it might even save foreign religions too, who knows...but if you just trust in that question - 'do you believe?' - or whatever faith is - I really don't like having to ask geneticists what faith really is - but if free speech allows you to ask 'do you believe?' - and genetics doesn't mind hiring out god on an outsourced rate of rights allowable -at least for the show to film God being hired out, and, then, maybe the rates that God is hired out at, could be at least leased to cosmology - then we might ask - yeah - standing on Jupiter - well, with a space suit - and, without the gravity sucking you in, and the pressure crushing your body -are you getting this free speech? - its more than just a fucking question! 

And, if genetics hires out God or the rights to God, or His right hand is still available-not attached to his body, or whatever - but if the question 'do you believe?' maintains while you're standing on Jupiter - yeah - fuck you genetics, I could have just imagined an All-Powerful stance instead - like He could possibly be the authority as which governs also- like, 10,000 years of writing, and, like, 100,000 years of language, before, that hadn't found issue with anything yet, but you keep on about your parallel-free-speech-this and your dark-genetics-that and I'm sure you're signing good checks, whatever about tenets of faith, as would seem secure if it weren't for your fucking profit margin, whatever the fuck that has to do with getting your lobby passed dumb fuck politicians, who don't know what governance is to be leaving God out of it. If you were to stand on Jupiter, and free speech were not to crush your body, and genetics were not to succumb to the pressure - and your lobbied politician looked smart in his spacesuit - then - what if...if The Sun had strong enough gravity to warp the light from the stars behind it, but also more. Strong enough gravity that it could suck light into it. What then, hey? - I'd be a predictor just like Einstein, and God would have to do more work to satisfy my mind, to affect his body. What about that Occam's razor. Shall I name the sunset after my theory or just get on and open a bank account?

Well, what do other cosmologists do when they're onto something? Speculating in the darkness seems to secure finance. Maybe they're onto something too? What observation inspired black holes in the first place? Why are we even looking? Nobody is looking for a fifth dimension, even though maths is not limited to four...And, Christ, they start looking. The universe is a lot more simple than anything you can pick out of maths to stick into the night sky - and a lot more complex than anything you can rule by finance, but not much more. Whoever the fuck made that rule up....? Dead law! What was the observation? Who asked the question? Look at Einstein - he predicts and it comes true. What if I predict, will it come true? Will God do the work, to satisfy my infinite mind? But I'm imagining gravity so strong that light can't escape. Aren't I not cruel. Come on, God - do the work!

Behold, if God would just break down and tell us the creation story, light ought behave. I know relativity. Time is time itself. Now - what if light can't escape - don't you like my narrative? - I think I heard a siren, it must have been an explosion. It was fifteen miles, err, that way. I am a reliable witness. What else can I rule? Can I have a bit of insurance, if I'm going to rule all finance anyway. What about a big bank story, with an inflation period. What else does the economy need to hide. Got some expansion going on universe? Don't see straight lines of rays of light fulfilling that. Light ought behave. See! Light can be drawn expanding circles for it, and even spheres. Overlook this, and claim the universe to be expanding instead. Whatever. Idiots. Anyone want an expanding Earth? God is still available to do the work, if anyone can say it authoritatively enough. Don't you even believe in television? It tricks human learning. Didn't you learn it well?

Light ought behave! It's just traversed the deepest chasm imaginable to observing man -the deepest ravine possible to exist in space and time- the entire width of the visible universe. Light is tired, for Christ's sakes! And we greet it with that - light: you ought behave! I know relativity. Time is time itself. Light ought behave. Why won't God breakdown, and tell us the creation story, when I tell him to...every other insurance market niche does! I ought be able to dominate every fearing morsel. Don't you detect a dominant subjugation going on in my narrative? I tell God to break down. He tells me the creation story. It's nothing that a two year old child couldn't ask their father. It gives my budget next years projections to make. It sponsors my viewing time. It has my endorsement. Wait, was this universe designed by a committee? Doesn't it satisfy a human need? But, I already told God to breakdown. Why won't He tell me the creation story?

Lets try this differently: Yo! Aliens! - your God and stuff! -we is Earth -we is prepared to kill your God in a great backward explosion - and we believe we can take the universe with us. We don't mind sending these vibes out to the universe, as we got no Goddamned respect for our God. What about it, hey? - Can we kill your God instead? But if it turns out you're really big and scary, and don't limit your existence to your proof, and don't, but, have bigger guns, and stuff, than us, or whatever, won't you avoid looking at us, like, to come rescue the other fools as must by implication, be calling us their masters?!! Now, we're prepared to bomb our Earth until it causes earthquakes. We've already caused 10,000 nuclear tests, but its the angry ones we try to avoid. Like, radioactivity empathizes with our anger. We denounced God's existence. Something about Christ had died. Something about life besides than alive and dead. But we're not bothered. God is dead. Now that we have the title, we can rule everything fucking nominally! God is dead! - lets explore the universe. We own the bank. The bank is ours again. I said, already, we own the bank - what can this cosmologist's problem be? Does he want me to get all dark on his arse or something? I went parallel. Nobody noticed. I could, you know. 

Light traverses the universe, and when light notices its parallels, men build roads. You ought pay more attention to that which you cannot respect. The question arises in a wonder, if light left the sun from any two points, could it possibly be such that light fairies riding along light's ray might ever get, both, to enjoy the same ride? No. Any two such light fairies leaving the sun -by a light ray- would eventually diverge in their path. That wonder existed before Romans built roads! Isn't it a coincidence? Parallelism and intersection, every revolution develop somewhat. And, did you see your jungle out there? Your concrete jungle has developed intersections besides than mere crosses!

You're not looking at anything in nature, and, thinking - ah yeah what about that - that could be the equivalence of a black hole! The only thing you find as equivalence is wealth's greed and its excuse-making. Isn't wealth's greed already a bit too far in economic values describing the universe? No child ever has wonder for their parents to tell them - "please Daddy, will you tell me why my bank account is not with the proper cosmology?"

It does not serve a purpose to corrupt the creation story to include wealth. It does not make it look more secure, for being beyond the reach of man. Inventing money on day two of God's six days will not make for a more secure story. Only more twists and turns. Yo, guys, we have a four day head-start on any bank robbers, now, but I can't say how long that gives us - oops. err, or, rather, I heard there was this thing money invented four days ago, so you're learning quickly how money works since only four days ago, of course you are, you candy-holding baby. More secure, hey? - if only its far, far away, out of sight, out of mind.

It serves no human or divine purpose to name the conquered elements of the cosmos for the sponsors of its explorations, in wealth. We were warned: no riches will get you into heaven. And, yet we think our man-made stuff different when paying to get up there. We only have ourselves to fool. And, yet we're managing to insult an imaginary creator in God. Its only because we each of us fail to imagine ourselves as Godly that his insult goes unpunished. That's Infinite Patience subject to inexorability, inevitability, and what is not indefinitely put off. God would you hurry up Your Infinite Wisdom's praise, and let the end-user revolution do its homework, and enough of this seven-year-long-itch-for-an-Iphone-salespitch strategy called the banking crisis! It hasn't fooled anyone, only frustrated them. 

The Fundaments of Geometry Maintain at Proportion

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.

Revolutionary Perceptions

Scientific innovation could hurtle humankind into the future at quite a pace, but conservativism encourages keeping within the pale any such hurry as everyday business could not be run: - were there not the deception involving, of a truth lacking, which allows command a price - for what is marketable in any one generation, as becomes a defunct mechanism upon passing. Thus encouraging a revolutionary cynicism for any stagnation, asking "why not everything now sooner"!

'Would you ever stop wishing to change things: I get nothing done', says the businessman who wishes that one of these generations people would stop changing everything so as he might allow some notion of success be allowed; and goalposts wouldn't move within the scope and frame of their having been set, to their having been reached...leading to a conservative cynicism for any change, asking 'for goodness sakes, why not just one of these generations, leave things as they are'!

Tis not our slant in favouring ideas as allowed inevitability draw sooner or later any change or stagnation as might come or go, but only how we welcome that which is inevitable to usher in its glory. Formulaters of normative policy might tell us we ought bring spring sooner and autumn later, but it won't change anything; except that to say "I like spring and I don't like autumn" might allow a perception of such things exist. To blame autumn-haters on why the spring features what it does and vice versa, would miss be to the point in considering the power of our free expressions.

Politics doesn't ask us to discuss such things as are against God's will; to allow move from what His plan is, for us, nonetheless. If everyone wanted pink umbrellas, doesn't mean umbrella manufacturers would want to make them all pink, or to make any more items than they were already making. Everyone wanting revolution won't bring revolution closer: revolutionary change is only gonna come by its own forces.

Tisn't by arguing 'we want money to be different' that such change might arise. Such are the changes as allow money to sway, as are underpinned by other relationships as ought need sooner first change, before any such thing as the former's acceptability of changing might arise. Without the invention of paper and coins, the abstraction of value in currency might have no affect on humanity. there's little point arguing we oughta have an abstract form of value, unless maybe you might see some technology suitable of taking on its manifest form as an expression sufficiently tasked with what newness that such abstraction implies. To the caveman inventing money, his blood's circulation or sweat on his brow, as easily deducible as value for work done, he could erroneously have considered that to burn his leftover dinner bones was as likely an abstraction satisfying value as would bring him to the next level of progress before inventing capitalism: to make a piece of metal equal to some effort done would seem even now just as confusing.

Without Civil Rights of the 1960's you wouldn't have the 1970's Bretton Woods discussions as they were. Arguing their outcomes blind to one another would seem a nonsense. Other social factors are necessary before economic change can arise. But anyway, besides all this, truth isn't that bothered with money, to begin with. Too much asking Santa for a healthy bank account and he might not bring us the toys we asked for.