Analysis and objectives of sciences, we realize that the physical sciences are limited to « how » and of this fact are alienated with the philosophy which will indicate it to them « why ». If we want to prevent that the container in fact, is associated contained, in other words to apply logic and the first principle stated by Bossuet, (in example it is enough to write on one limps “limps with cheese” so that this one becomes limps it with cheese official, even if it is not the best tool), we must integrate a share of philosophy in physics. It is thus well the logic which will indicate to us which is the best tool according to knowledge of the moment, and this logic results always from why, and never of how. And as the physical sciences are limitees; with “how”, thus the researchers and discoverers always have a philosophical facet. Thus still, it is necessary initially differentiated the major direction from the symbols, to foresee the logic which makes it possible to write them. We must in first include/understand it why that I defend, then and only then the symbols which I use could take a direction and be used for the communication. The analysis and the synthesis are defended here, but in first, it should be admitted that in science we can discuss and define concepts. And from this simple fact according to the introduction, that the same object can have quite different influences, as that can be observed in regulation. It is the state of the system which counts and not the level which allows the observation. I present a system of analysis made up of inductions of the knowledge of the moment. To include/understand, hystereses, with the method, no need to use representations with the letter tau. I use the letter tau, so as to separate well the concept which it represents, of the concept that the value OJ represents, which has very an other direction. One translated by the appearance of a function delay, whereas it is not that an induction of the inertia of the system (time of diffusion,…), while the other is characteristic of the factor which gives the form to the variation. I thus try to separate the concepts using symbols, even if we find the same algebraic writing, the direction of the formula is given by the symbol. It is the direction of the symbol which is the reason to be of the writing, the type of modeling. Mathematics which forgot the raison d'être of logic, falls under the law from the first principle stated by Bossuet. Thus, one of the first things indicated here, is to be within which framework the symbols are used. The values are not any more of the concepts of quantity, but many reports/ratios so as to studied how they varied. The system suggested is very powerful and develops in multiple forms of associations. The more we refine research, the more we refine the details and the precision of modeling. But the approach forces to perceive the basic concepts which are quite different from old, if we do not want to mislay us in errors of construction. With this the fact is added that when us let us have too many factors, even if us or I could detail them, the facility pushes to keep only the significant part of the formula so as to represent and define modeling easily. But I confirm that all these modelings are only loops resulting from the algorithms used in regulation. Understand that with the same tool, according to how we perceive it and use it let us can make quite different things (the knife which makes it possible to nourish the toothless veillard, or for the keeler), thus, it is necessary to take some in the same way, it is the manner of perceiving and to use the formulas which their give all their values and induces of them also new laws and forms of associations useful for modeling. If the historical study teaches us a thing, it is although reality is into perpetual change according to our knowledge of the moment. As became the certainty of the ancient Egyptians who placed the ground as the center of the universe and thus had succeeds in using weightings identifying a long time in advance the movement of planets as if that were a proof of their knowledge? As became the certainty of the barded scientists of certainty which aligned the rule on the horizon so as to show that the ground was punt? As became the experts in grammatical rules, in given directions of the terms, the dead languages and for some even forgotten today? How much mathematical systems became obsolete and useless with modeling? In fact if the historical study teach us a thing, it is that it is only the reflection and analyzes setting in collective memory passing through that of an individual. The first principle of reasoning of Bossuet remains a base, but a base which surfing like a cake of soap on the wave of perception. I indicate a new page here so as to identify automatically how much factors appear in a variation. www.letime.net/identification by using the study of the forms using proportions while eliminating to pace the concepts of quantities. Do the physical sciences remain a branch of sciences and for this reason must incorporate the new discoveries, thus we know that the ground is moving how can keep a reference frame starting with a zero number? whereas the knowledge indicates to us that speed varies from one balance to another? That the ground is moving. Modeling or if prefer our mathematical bases must be modified to correspond to our knowledge. Aristote had already said it, a few centuries ago, the proposals must be most universal possible. The man is of curious nature and sciences follow its movement. We learned with reconnaitre the reactions in physical sciences on a basis from four cases for two factors. In example: case 1: A implies B case 2: A implies that B misses case 3: B implies has case 4: B implies that A misses On this basis we can still develop reciprocities and others, but the basis assessment, modeling is named here. Now let us try to imagine that this system is good for prehistoric men, not having too many means, and will see towards ancient Greece if some Plato or Aristote, did not have some other modelings. We realize that one of them granted the secrecy of the life to the shape of the swirl. Let us continue the step using the knowledge of the moment and see whether this form can be modelled and taken as bases of a model of reflexion, of a modeling, in other words of a mathematical system. Let us take again the case of two factors case 1: A is an impulse, and implies B, which generates has and maintains it. case 2: A is constant, and implies B, which accentuates has until its limit case 3: A is a slope, and implies B, which accentuates has until its limit. The differentiation of the three cases will be done using the study of the form of the variations. The formulas for so simple cases are known of all, which I underline in this proposal, it is the fact that our mathematical base is perhaps not the best. You will answer me that Poincaré had already shown it in the science of the assumption, but what I underline also here, it is the study of the forms without concept of quantity, just with the assistance of a concept of percentage. Currently this one as its name indicates it is a proportion on hundred, but nothing us empèche to in the case of take as den the remarkable points in example the 63% an only factor influencing a naturally stable system. And the physics built on the old mathematical basis? will say to me. It is always like the harpoon, before the invention of the net, it is always like the shovel before the invention of tractopelle, it could always useful for be stripped. It was well for yesterday, but not for today, which takes another day. Laplace, Lavoisier, and as well of others are the passage as it will be necessary to cross before being able to create other ideas, in order not to be locked up in the belief and the dogma. 
