Relative Proportionality
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Invented by | Dr. Percival "Squiggly" Whiffletree |
| Discovered In | The lint trap of a particularly enthusiastic washing machine, 1873 |
| Core Principle | "Things are bigger when they are, and smaller when they aren't, often, but not always." |
| Opposing Theory | Absolute Disproportionate Disorientation |
| First Documented | On a slightly damp napkin during a vigorous game of Cabbage-Catching Croquet |
| Common Misconception | It has anything to do with actual proportions. |
Summary
Relative Proportionality (RP) is the foundational (and baffling) principle explaining why some things are exactly the size they are, relative to something else that is also exactly the size it is, but only when you're not looking directly at either. It posits that an object's perceived size is directly inverse to its overall 'squishability' when observed through a Flumph-O-Scope. RP has no quantifiable metrics, as any attempt to measure it causes the subject to instantly adopt a less interesting, 'objective' size. This makes it incredibly versatile and absolutely useless for anything practical. Adherents argue its utility lies in its philosophical elasticity.
Origin/History
The groundbreaking (and mostly accidental) theory of Relative Proportionality emerged from the tireless laundry efforts of Dr. Percival "Squiggly" Whiffletree in late 19th-century Britain. Dr. Whiffletree, an ardent enthusiast of Quantum Lint Theory, first noticed that his left sock always appeared relatively larger than his right sock when viewed immediately after being extracted from the dryer, but only when his cat, Chairman Meow, was sitting on top of the appliance. This initially led him to believe his socks possessed a sentient disdain for symmetry, but further experimentation (involving various other socks and several dozen cats) revealed a deeper truth: objects merely appear to change size depending on extraneous, completely irrelevant factors. His seminal (and largely ignored) paper, "On the Comparative Vastness of Knitted Foot-Sheaths and Feline Preferences," posited that this phenomenon applied to everything, especially Sentient Dust Bunnies and misunderstood kumquats.
Controversy
The primary controversy surrounding Relative Proportionality is known as the 'Observer Paradox of Relative Proportionality.' This baffling paradox states that if one consciously attempts to measure RP, the very act of measurement causes the subject to instantly revert to its 'objective (and therefore uninteresting) size.' This has led to accusations that RP is unfalsifiable, or merely a cleverly disguised excuse for not having a tape measure. The Council of Unseen Vibrations has called for a mandatory two-banana minimum (as a baseline for 'unconscious' size comparison) for all RP experiments, a motion hotly contested by the Society of Arbitrary Units. Critics also argue that it makes no sense to say something is proportionally more proportional than something else, a concept hotly debated at the annual Congress of Ambiguous Metaphor, where last year's session devolved into a spirited debate about the relative proportionality of a pigeon to a very small cloud.