michel123456

And the result is...

Do you have a recorded example, out of Human Beings?

It seems the G-model hurts too much accepted theories. The wiki article is unbelievably poor. There are only few translations in english. The situation is terrible. You engaged a lost battle, Duda. But G-model is really interesting.

Could you elaborate your answer a little bit?

Yes. I don't know. That should be great.

Thank you. I learned something today. See arity: "Arities greater than 2 are seldom encountered in mathematics, except in specialized areas, and arities greater than 3 are seldom encountered in theoretical computer science. In computer programming there is often a syntactical distinction between operators and functions; syntactical operators usually have arity 0, 1 or 2." from the wikipedia article. ------------------------------- After some deeper thoughts: An operation on the X axis is binary, an operation on the XY axis is ternary, an operation on XYZ axis is quaternary. Is that correct?

Indeed, Time is not on the catalog of the 4 fundamental forces. One could say that Time is in the catalog, since each of the 4 fundamental interactions is measured function of time. The same comment for space. I agree 100%

Give some examples.

I thought the OP question was not only about numbers or entities, but about operation. An usual operation like addition goes like this: A+B=C the reverse is C-B=A What would be the form of a triplet operation? Something like A@B#C=D ? Where @ and # are the operational factors that both must be used in order to make a result. (like in catalysis) (or like in chess, the horse moves 2 steps ahead and one step aside) ???

It is not an accurate description. It is worth reading the wikipedia article about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. IMHO the real problem is not that of an event like armagedon, but more probably like the destruction of knowledge by humans themselves. It will come a time when scientific progress will be seen as evil and will be destroyed by people who admire the vertues of simplicity and ignorance. That is a very dangerous threat, and very difficult to avoid. Nothing can resist the demolishing power of humans. If you want to protect knowledge by hiding it, how will you manage to hide it from people who want to destroy it and simultaneously show it to other people who will ressurect it in the future? That is not evident at all.

Maybe like in catalysis, 2 substances react with the help of a third one (catalyst).

(emphasis mine) That is a lot of calculation to finally choose the 2 clocks with negative value. See my post #7.

From the wikipedia article about String Theory. Evidence shows that the 4 known dimensions (3 of Space, 1 of Time), are only positive. It means: distance along X, Y, Z is only positive, time is only positive. My questions are the following: 1.Is this "positive feature" appearing from the Theory or artificially inserted on the basis of evidence? 2. what about the remaining dimensions: are they positive? are they negative? or are they not constraint by anything being positive negative wathever it takes?

Hm. In this case, there is a difference between math and evidence. Evidence shows that only positive mass exists, and only positive distance exists, and only positive time exists. On the other hand, maths provide the negatives. The question is thus simply to ask if we can insert those mathematical negatives when explaining evidence. And from a pure theoretical point of vue I don't see any reason why not.

That is a huge step forward. Thank you. Lemur: yours.

Great. Usually when I talk about negative distance I only take answers like "utter nonsense".

I like Lemur's proposal. All you need is negative distance. Think about it: in our world, only positive distance exists, and only the past is observable. All distance is linked with time, and this time is always in direction of the past. What is not observable: negative distance & the future. This is the world of anti space-time. Think of it otherwise: when you look around you, all that you observe lie at some distance in the past. The past is a sphere extending all around you. When the distance decreases, you get less in the past, closer to the present. When the sphere touches yourself, you reach the present. If you want to continue further, you have to continue inside yourself and find the future.

The future.

This is out of my knowledge but maybe your ferrofluid becomes magnetically saturated. Or it is not a ferrofluid but a magnetorheological fluid.

The peculiar thing is the white side.

After informing myself about conspiracy of 9/11, I came to the impression something has not been explained. When such an event arise, like airplane highjacking, governmental authorities (like FBI, CIA, and others) immediately work on the case. It means that "war on terror" began even before the airplanes hit the towers. All informations related to the event must have been classified right from the beginning. The information collected have naturally passed through authority approval, and any information suceptible to help the terrorists or harm the U.S. has been removed. It is always the case in a state of war. The expression "war on terror" did not came from nowhere, but from a well informed attorney in the oval office. In time of war, laws change. It must also be clear that any terrorist action is accompanied by a message, usualy a written text, or a video, explaining the reasons of the act, describing the ennemy, and justifying the act. It is well known from the authorities and when such an event occur one of the main concern is to intercept and destroy the message or to change it radically. And as far as I know that has been succesfully done in the 9/11 case. In fact, as simple individuals, we have no information coming directly from the terrorists, we have only information distilled by auhorities. And this may be a cause of conspiracy theories: yes of course you have not access to the whole story, you are in state of war. As for the discussion of the collapse of the towers, I am an architect, and I am not surprised. Metal buildings are not fire-proof. There is no need for the steel to melt, it has been stated before. I may say that I saw in almost real time on my tv screen the planes crash into the towers, and I was surprised that the towers resist so well to the tremendous impact. And one must know that even without the presence of fuel, a common fire is very very destructive. Here is , you may found several others.Remember, without tons of fuel spread everywhere....

I don't. You have the experience, I don't. What kind of problems? I think even in regular trial a prosecuted has the right to retract. Sure, it is a menace. Do I have to take that as a compliment? It is leveling from the bottom, isn't it? How many illegal posts have you reported to authorities from the beginning of this forum?

From Forum Rules: Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be deleted. Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be referred to authority. How will you refer something that has been deleted? IMHO nothing must be deleted, but instead sent to the trash can, or maybe to another sewage plant containing posts reported to authorities hidden from all, except staff and author, and on special request, to authorities. The author should always have access to his own posts. Maybe should the author always been able to delete his own garbage.

To Imatfaal: Good for you. I guess the people on this Forum is not representative of the average. And I have no backup for my percentages, it was a way of speaking. But there is a reason why religions are concentrated geographicaly. Most people are learned to believe the way they do through parents, school, culture or even government. Only a small percentage has the time and the intelligence to question. Most of the population only follow whithout questionning. To Voltman. Only one thing is sure: we are all wrong. The one who believes is right is more wrong than the others. The main goal should be to always question and to answer less, especially when answers come straight right from an old book.

This is exactly the Pascal's wager. The simple answer is my father was an atheist, so am I. I strongly believe that the same goes for 99,99% of believers. I also strongly believe that it is totaly impossible to make people change faith through argumentation. Maybe under torture and even then I have doubts. Words are certainly not enough. My father was an atheist because his father was. And my grandfather was an atheist because his father was. It is supposed in the family that my greatgrandfather was chased from communion under social rebellion circumstances and became unwillingly atheist as a revolted against the catholic church. Mr Skeptic must be part of the 0,01% of people who has changed faith after reasoning logicaly.