Sorry ML1, but I do not get the 42 just here.

I got stuck fingers and also got a little tired during the whole day, so here having one beer, and next going to bed.

My intention here was making it rather Proof here instead for still only the validness or validity it could become, except only science in general.

But either nature could contradict itself for still not any validness it could become, because lying for just a Proof, should not be any answer either.

Rather that I chose to make it Logic here for still not any Religion, when only nature for that of such a thing, for not any aliens here instead.

So again for still only getting tired for also sore eyes, I am not able to do such a thing right now, except still the proving of science it perhaps could be.

The WOW! signal was still narrowband, and also centered around 1420 MHz for that of frequency, so here not knowing any other alternative.

But as previously mentioned, only ends up a waste of time for also fruitless, when still the debate for that of pros versus cons for only such a thing.

You could be the one (not necessarily our Martin), who only chooses to dismiss any Fact regardless of any likelihood or Probability.

Just invalid for only an analog signal for still not any converted into digital for only a score, it becomes still only a shot in the dark.

I better have the beer right now and try again tomorrow instead, when the senses perhaps are in better shape than just now.

Sorry ML1, but I do not get the 42...

See and enjoy:

Douglas Adams and the cult of 42
wrote:

If you know The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, then you also know the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. But how did Douglas Adams come up with that number?...

There are many fun and good things in our Universe!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pGOFX1D_jg

Sorry, I meant proving here instead, for that of science.

Tell me that any love is a curse.

Do you remember a day in September, for not any inception of a project happening in 1999?

In such a way, it became the question of asking whether or not we are any alone in space, for that of the Universe.

Next, "tempus fugit", for still only Event driven, except that a couple of things could still happen by only chance or Coincidences.

So, mixed up feelings, for not any fortune, and it becomes only a nature in Chaos or turmoil instead, and next I could be still only a believer.

Any trust versus Credibility, and it becomes only Logic for the same, when I could be still making it true versus false only for the same.

Here watching a couple of programmes on the native or European edition of History Channel, where a couple of pictures or videos
are perhaps not any fakes, but rather more obvious instead.

Should the project, and here Seti@home, perhaps state for a Fact that we perhaps are not any alone, for only Evidence provided?

The problem here is that the majority of users or moderators, perhaps are not any "whips" either, but rather more Atheists,
who choose to dismiss possible relevant Fact for rather fiction instead.

I know it could be Credible Evidence at times for also relevant Fact, except still proving for the same, except not making it any Truth either.

So here science both makes and means, for not any priests or even the Pope deciding either, for only the Religion it perhaps could be.

Again, that for only me sitting in the chair, it should not be any nil chance or Probabilty for me existing, except perhaps others instead.

Here not linking right now, but should be the Drake equation here, when also the Kardashev scale.

Is a gravitational engine supposed to warp or distort a gravitational field for that of propulsion, or could it be something else?

Only that you state a true Fact for not any believing, and still make it E.T or aliens for that of possibility, and also likelihood for the same.

Perhaps "bewildered" for only a word, and next Word Link just here, for not any infallible or incomprehensible nature instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof

But next I only proved Logic for the false versus true it could be, except not dismissing it here instead, when also that of Religion.

So, which recognition of a Fact, for not any acknowledgment just either, when only a given nature for that of a meaning,
and next we also should prove for that of the same?

Only that you choose to be an Atheist or perhaps Agnostic, and next quantizing nature for a given meaning, when also proving for the same.

Any Fallacies for Religion, and perhaps not the same for any science, when still only proving instead, for that of relevant Fact.

Here I chose not to dismiss any aliens either, for that of relevant Fact, except only making it infallibility here instead, for still given nature.

My give or take is that nature could be still having a Creator behind for that of a Reason, except still only proving aliens instead.

You made or mentioned infinity for that of given purpose, and next I should also prove for that of the same, except that it
perhaps only became a detour here instead.

So, proving any Logic, for not any Religion instead, and it becomes only "Machine messiah" for not any "noname",
when only such a thing for that of given nature.

Make a choice between any Chaos or turmoil, for only believing here instead, and next still not any validness or validity
for that of Logic, when next also proving for that of the same.

Should any Religion, for only believing, be part of a given whole when still only nature for that of its infallibility (or infinity),
except that the Concept of God, could be still only worshipping just here?

Prove any infallibility, and next you only try proving Religion, for still not any Logic here, except that it became only infinity instead.

So what if I quantized any infinity for only valid, except only making it Logic here instead?

Prove any true for not any false, and next it becomes only a difference, for not any Falsification (or invalid) here instead.

Any determined, for still not any undetermined, and you only make a choice for that of such a thing, when still only a difference.

So, let it go, and next it also became wrong, except still not any believing for only proving here, and next becoming Fallacies here instead.

Which whole, for still that of complete, except that it became only infinity for that of defined, and next we also should "believe"
only for the same.

But next I only proved infinity for being an Equation, except not any E=mc2 here, when still only an infallible nature in respect
with that of infinity.

But if so, next I also proved nature to be false, for not any true, and next I also quantized nature for not any determinable.

Going wrong, and next only an error, except that I was only stating nature for a Fact, and next also was proving for the same.

Any incomplete versus complete, and next only infinity for that of the same, except that we perhaps know it.

So if perhaps Logic could be still infallible, next also Logic for that of the same, in that both could not be any "provable".

Next only "so long", for that of "Dumbo", because here I was still only a believer, for not any Proof versus a given project instead.

But here the (our) moderator, choose to make it a project for that of a given precedence, and next only let me believing for the same.

Should I next quantize nature for only that of infallible, for not believing in any Religion here instead, only because it should be provable?

If I happened to invalidate any Logic or Religion for not being any valid, next I could still quantize nature for only the meaning it could be.

Here you are never supposed to make a choice between Religion and science for only a Fact, because the latter should be still only provable.

So, matter for not any meaning, when still only provable, it became only science for such a thing when it still only matters.

But only that I quantized nature for still only valid when also determinable, for not any believing here instead, when still only Religion.

Only that I proved nature for that of completeness when still not any incomplete, for only the indeterminable it perhaps could be.

So, add for also included, when still Religion for that of the same, and it became a nature for that of completed, when still only infinite.

Trust nature for that of its infallibility, and next you also make such a thing for that of Religion, except still only proving here instead.

Only the other thing here perhaps, and next "Machine messiah" or "noname" just here, for that of a Creator which I could be making possible.

Only that you prove the experienced pilot for not any valid, and next becoming science for that of the same, except still
questioning for a given Fact or possibility.

So, which determined for only meant, for not any Type III civilization here, for only the possibility it perhaps could be?

Should I make it a possible dream or wish, for still not any likelihood, when only such a thing for that of possibility?

So next only stumble on a Fact for just that of "more", for not any infinity here instead, because here Belief is still not any Proof.

Again that Heisenberg makes it part versus whole here, except that you could still only prove a Fact versus meaning.

Or, still a video or photograph just here, for next only me believing or even watching, except still not any proving here instead.

Fallacies for Religion, and next not any quantifiable, when also a nature for that of infinite, and not any determinable.

Are numbers still meant to be valid for only meaning, or should I still only quantify infinity for that of being infallible?

In such a way, I only proved numbers for the valid meaning it could be, for not any Fallacies of nature here instead,
when it could become invalid.

Hint: I made or mentioned that of a Creator for such a thing it perhaps could become, and next also showing up also here.

Only that you prove the complete for still not any incomplete, and next making it infinity here instead.

But here that any determined nature also could be undetermined or indeterminable, and you could still quantify for only a meaning.

Should I next "prove" any Creator with respect with infinity or E=mc2, for both being Equations just here?

Any valid Logic, for still only trusted here, and next not any believing here, for only the invalid it perhaps could be.

But here supposedly only the "other thing", for still not any given nature for only the respect or validness it could be.

Only that a lack of Perception, also became believing for the same, for not any trust here instead, only because it should be still proving.

Natural resources, for not any aliens lacking such a thing for that of need or disposal.

Any FIFO, for only nature coming first, and I could still quantify for such a thing.

But only that I concluded nature for the possible valid meaning it could be, for not any invalidating here instead.

Should any quantify or quantification, be still only that of nature for that of respect, or should I be rather believing here instead?

Next only believe for that of infallible, for still not any quantifying here, because the first should be still only Religion,
for not any nature here instead.

Edit: I could try switching for that of an opposite sentence, except a couple of beers instead.

So, twist and shout, for still not any battle, and it becomes only such for that of science versus Religion.

Only that I proved that of true for not any false, and next becoming invalid here instead, for only a Falsification.

Quantifiable Logic - and next only true versus false for the same, for not any Proof or proving here instead.

Is any quantified also determinable, next perhaps not any Logic here just either, but only an indeterminable nature here instead.

Only that Logic perhaps makes a choice between right and wrong, for not any true versus false here instead.

So, prove any validness or validity for not any opposite, and it becomes only invalid, for still the provable it perhaps could be.

Therefore, invalid --> quantifiable (or becomes, for that of a meaning).

Next I was proving a valid thing for only being true, for not any false here instead, because nature could be that of "both".

Proving for that of completeness, and next perhaps not any possible, for also the quantifiable it could be.

Does any nature bother between the false versus true it could be, for not any right versus wrong here instead?

Only that such a thing becomes still Fallacies for nature, and next I should be only believing, for not any proving here instead.

So, dismiss for not any select, and it becomes only a choice here instead, when you could be making it right versus wrong.

Should any Truth, for only the false versus true it could be, only be determinable for that of a nature for a given meaning?

Here that I proved the right for only the true it could be, for not any wrong, because the latter should be still only a Fallacy.

Only that I quantized nature for that of making it similar right, for not any wrong here instead, because it could be still only false.

Is any infallibility only a choice between false versus true for that of Logic, for not any Religion here instead?

Or, back to the same, for only what I just said, that neither Logic or Religion could be any valid for only a quantifiable meaning.

Prove a Creator for still only false versus true, and next it becomes only Logic here instead, for which I could invalidate.

So, not sure for only unsure, and I became only undecided for still not proving for a valid meaning here.

"Does God exist", for not any nature for the same, and next you only could prove for that of validness, for not making it
any false here instead.

Please excuse me, but next I only believed for making it Truth, for not any false or Falsification (invalid) here instead.

So, qualify versus quantify, for still not any determined, and next I could only believe, for not making it any Proof here.

Any FIFO, for still only nature, and next also first choice for not any believing here instead, only because I made such a choice.

Only that I proved nature for that of valid, and next also true, for not any false or invalid here instead, because the latter
should be still only false.

Should I still prove nature for that of valid, for not any true versus false here instead, only because it still matters?

But only set example, for still not any quantify versus unquantifiable, and it becomes only opposite, for not any determined here instead.

So next determinable, for still meant, and it becomes an Implication for that of such, when also a stated meaning, or Fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implication

Proving any nature for only that of its incompleteness, for not any complete here instead, and it becomes only Fallacies here.

Hopla (again), because we see or make it nature for that of complete, when also proving for the same, for still not any infallible here
when it becomes that of science versus Religion.

Anyway, two more beers still left in the fridge, and I could be drunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjQUucV83w4

Still not any provable for that of science, should it be, just here?

Or could I be still only asking, for not any question here instead?

Hmm, Proof for that of nature, for still not any select, and next I could choose, for only making it going.

Only obvious, for that of natural, and still not any point of dismissing any science for also the lack of Proof it could be.

Just evident, and perhaps not any valid just either, for also the Proof you could make, when still for nature.

Just picking a given nature, for also that of conclusiveness, of course such a thing I could make, for not anything else.

Make pornography "legal" instead.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/telford-abuse

Let us try by picking a beer from the fridge, because I was out shopping earlier today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__xuMe5rLGc

Congrats to Nasa here. What an achievement!

The words of Einstein - everything is relative.

Therefore no need of tainting or tarnishing just lovely from that of ugly or bad, because it could have been created with a purpose in mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

So here infinity is supposed to be a Concept right now, and not any Construct, because here the latter article now needs a rewrite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Here the speed of light, or c, is supposed to be a constant, while time rather should thought of or viewed as relative.

Any wrong for that of both theories, and it becomes a Consensus (not that one) for that of shaking hands, or meeting at the middle.

Almost reminding me of a negotiated settlement for still an agreement being made, except that it became only Gods words instead,
when also a compromise for that of the same.

"In the beginning", and God saw that it was working, except not making it any exactness or preciseness just for the same.

But here that of blue or blueish for that of color visible in the Orion nebula, for not any red here instead, because still not any tainted.

Any Heaven and Hell for still only given purpose for only meant, and here not any infinity for still only making it working.

So for just looking up in the sky, and watching the loveliness of nature for just joy and pleasure, perhaps still only a given Creation for just given,
when also a model of the Universe.

And for not any forgiveness or sake just either, when that of Religion for only believing, it became still a Creator just here.

Namely that the Creator of infinity, also became the Reason behind, for only just better.

"And saw it was working" - should you make it an approximation here, for still not any exact or preciseness for that of making instead?

So, prove science, for still only its final or finite Conclusion or ending, for not any infinite here instead, when still only nature for that of a purpose.

Any infinite joy, also ininite horror for just the other thing, except only two different things on a scale.

So here still not any need of tainting or tarnishing a lovely Creation for that of purpose in mind, because it could be still only endless.

Perhaps I could still adore my best friend, for also love someone being close to me, for not any hate or hatred here instead.

Some make it perhaps an abyss, while others an oblivion or demise when also a destiny, for still any final that should be for an end.

But only that infinity makes it complete for that of everything included, when also being combined or added.

So here the singularity becomes still infinite density when that of a Black hole, for not any infinite Universe instead.

"Father, why did you leave me (for that of left)", when hanging on the cross, because here only an ultimate sacrifice being made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_allegiance

Sorry, I meant it should be a wish here instead, and next also believing in such a thing for only the Credo it perhaps could be.

But here I did not hate (for that of hatred) any Creation meant to be for only the lovely or adorable it still could only be.

Infinite joy or adoreness/adoration, for still not any infinite hell, makes for still only infinity here both ways, for still only opposite or dissimilar.

Should I next love or adore nature for not any hellish, because here still only a blueish color for not any red, when that of tainted?

But as you know, we make it still infinity for that of completeness, when also representing nature for that of the same.

In the same way, that 28 for that of perfect number, is still only a continuation of Chaos, turmoil, or randomness, for only whatever it could be.

So here my give and take on it, for not any order of a magnitude, when also an Agnostic of sorts, that I could be making it still Creation here.

Prove science with still respect to any science, for not any God here instead, only because the latter should be still only Religion and worshipping.

Slip my tongue, for not science any perfect, because here not any Religion the same for still only the worshipping it could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof

So prove any science with still respect for only Proof, and it becomes proving nature for that of its initial Cause and origin here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(disambiguation)

Should nature still only contradict itself for that of behavior or whereabouts, and next we only have to prove for that of the same.

But here yet another word, still not invented by myself, namely "infallibility", when it could become such a nature here as well.

Any "Premise" of nature for still only respect with infinity, it only becomes such a thing (infinity) for that of given purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

Only that it invalidates itself for being negative or unary (not any binary or numbers), and next you know I dismissed both Logic and Religion.

So in the way of only dismissing Logic and Religion for that of validness or Proof, I rather made it a scientific God here for that of my understanding.

Is any nature's thinking when still only Einstein, and not any God, be that of c being a constant, and next time being relative?

So, kind of running short, for still not getting at it, and it became E=mc2 for that of a famous Equation, when still only c being a constant.

Is this Equation supposed to be only static, for not any dynamic here instead?

But next I only overstepped this Equation, for only walking past a part of it, and next thinking it should be God for a Reason here instead.

So lucky or fortunate I became when only proving nature for that of its infinity, when still not any Equation here for only equivalence.

Any regardless or whatever for still only the thing it perhaps could be, next only relative for that of the same, when making it infinity.

So, up the needle, for not any lying flat, because next it becomes a pedestal you should believe in, for that of its supremacy.

Is any God better than any nature you could make it, for not any Hell instead, only because these should be opposite factors
or elements of a given nature?

Also that I was thinking of Credibility just here for not making it either, except that validness or validity is still needed for making it Proof.

Any "person non grata" when also "noname" for that of a given God for just only meant, and it becomes still only worshipping or believing,
for not any proving of science here instead.

Oh yes, but next you think I am a priest only sitting here, preaching and proclaiming any Religion for only respect for the science it could be, for not any science itself, when it could be still only Laws and Equations.

But sadly, that observation for still only watching and seeing, needs Credible evidence just for the same, when still only becoming Fact,
for not any believer I should be here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Two different stories, kind of sorts, and the other one making it the Kardashev scale for also Types of civilizations, but not mentioned here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost

But next the ghost turned its face away from me, only letting me see its neck, for only a black coat being wearing.

It is still not any fork in his hands, but only that the ghost turned out to be the Devil, for only wearing black.

But next only a sense or feeling for just the same, when still not any love or predilection here instead.

Translates with "The Grim Reaper" or scythe, when still not any fork or pitch fork here instead.

Any Wise Men, for that of wisdom, and it become only the experienced pilot here instead, for still only you believing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

So sad, for still only making it an infallible nature here when that of infinity here for the same, for still only the trust or believing it could be.

Only laughter and ridicule, for still not any dismiss or reject I could be making it of both Logic and Religion, for the "valid" it could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim

Is it so that our moderator could be still only dismissing the claim I could be making, when only so for that of possible E.T. (full wording)?

So here only 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, and also 500 billion other galaxies for only the lovely or adorable it could be,
and still not any thing I only could hate or dislike.

Reject my Claim, for still not any Postulate or Axiom just here, but only proving for science for only the validness or validity it could be.

Any unique still does not mean any zero or nil for only ourselves for that of such preciousness, when perhaps still only alone in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan%27s_Quintet

You still think these should be still only lovely or adorable by just watching, for not any hated or disliked here instead?

Is that of nature for still only a preference, and it becomes still only infinity here, for not any unique here instead.

But again, for only that of qualitative versus quantitative, we also value science for the meaning it perhaps could be.

Therefore not any meaning of dismissing nature for only a set preference, for not any Religion here instead.

Quantize nature for that of given meaning, when both quantitative and qualitative, is a thing I always could make.

Let the old man speak, for still not any me or myself, and it becomes only science for that of a making, and also what we should prove.

Just throw the towel, for not any chair I was standing on, because next it was thrown away, and I was free-floating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

"Everything is relative", from the words of Einstein, and next it became Fundamental Laws for the same, when still not any loose air.

But next I only dismissed a Fundamental Concept by being flawed, in that I was making it infinity here instead.

So here time versus space, for that of proven infinity, when still a Concept for the same, when also making it a Construct.

Infinity --> no beginning versus no end, for that of still infinity for that of the same, when next also time and space.

But here infinity is still only undefined or undetermined as you know, for not any different approaches to the subject either.

Only that I know that infinity could be still quantized for that of its parts, except not what these parts exactly could be.

So here only Matter versus Energy, for also gravity representing such a thing, for not any valueless or invalid here instead.

Only that we think that Matter should be the thing we could materialize for also making valid, for still only the quantifiable it could be.

Just believe in ghosts for not any quantifiable here instead, because next such a thing could also materialize for a given reality.

So here still only proven science, for not any science versus Religion here instead, and next I was only "believing" in ghosts.

With respect to any science, for still not any Religion, and I only believed in ghosts, for not making it any provable here instead.

Quantifiable perhaps, and not any quantized, and it became still only the thing I could "believe" in respect with any Religion,
for not any science here instead.

Did I just say it above for only it matters, for not making it any God for just Creator when only sitting on a pedestal instead?

Is any infinity still only single for that of complete, or should it be still made of parts for that of respective?

Science makes it infinity here for that of a given choice, and next also chooses to prove for just the same.

"Dinner served", and next you have it all for just given, except that it became only nature for its completeness.

Sorry, I meant the Proof it still could only be here, for not any rebuttal here instead, because here it translates into
refutation or contradiction for just the same.

But here only Not for that of an unary negation or Complement, and as you know, I still only dismissed both Logic and Religion here.

When I climb the stairs for that of past or beyond possible infinity, next I could be seeing God (or Creator) in his eyes,
for the possible meaning it could be.

But only just dumb-fooled, for that of foolish instead, I was supposed to be proving possible E.T. for the valid meaning it perhaps could be.

So here that of invalid Logic, for that of "smack", and next I could be doing the same with any Atheists, for still not any believing.

Much to learn, and next also see, for still a nature of a making, for also the believing it perhaps could be, when also Proof here as well.

Getting two more beers from the fridge, and also some considerable problems with my flat for that of living.

Ok, so thinking it should be still valid here, for that of both materializing and quantizing, when still not any ghosts.

So here I was making it nature for that of a given choice when also proving, for still not any ghosts here instead.

Only that Logic became invalid for perhaps not any validating, when still only true versus for the same, and next I only was
quantizing for the material it perhaps could be.

The thing I perhaps should not do here, is invalidating nature for a given purpose when next also meant, because here at least it was created.

So, think that a thing is real for that of materializing, next also provable, for the quantizable or quantified meaning it could be.

Whisper in my ear, for still not any valueless or invalid, for also meaningless, because here it became a nature of a meaning instead.

Endless zeros, for that of 0, or nil, for also nada, and I also quantized nature for the same meaning, for still not any Belief here instead.

So, total, when still only full or quantifiable, and it becomes a nature for also provable, when only the Sets or amounts it perhaps could be.

Only that Belief is still only Religion, and next we should only believe or worship for just the same, for not making it any science here instead.

Should any infinity be proven here, for only the Concept or Construct it perhaps could be?

What if my interpretation (and not feeling) of nature, just fell short for only the infinity it could be, and not any Belief here instead?

Only that just a Credo I could make, only could be foolish, for still not any proving of science, for only the "whatever" it could be.

So, imagine a mirror (on the wall), for not any Mirage or Fata Morgana here instead, and next I only believed in nature for the invalid it could be,
for not any proving here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)

But here I was supposedly only proving valid versus true, for not any invalid versus false, only because of an unproven nature.

So, trust nature for only its validness, and it becomes Matter versus Energy for the same, when still also gravity.

Prove infinity for still not any undefined or undetermined, when next also immaterial for just the same.

Any valid or validness/validity for still only a spoken nature, and next also "true" for the same, and not any invalid or flawed here instead.

Should any false or Falsificiation become only a determined or quantified nature we could make it, and perhaps no such thing either.

Next, rely on Logic for still only the true versus false I could make, and next also prove for that of the same.

So, dismiss any nature for only flawed, and it becomes also unspoken words here as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractual_term

Whatever I said, you also said, for that of making it a reason, when next also infinite.

Infinite beauty, and it also becomes infinite horror just for the same, for only the opposite or inverse it still could be.

Any third Set of nature, for not any Laws, and I was or could be still only a believer, for not any Truth here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Should I believe in nature for just given, when also meant, for also the trusted meaning it could be, for that of valid,
when also Proof or proving for the same, for not any invalid here instead?

Run the horse for still only "hopla", and next only a Circus, for not any around or aground here instead.

Does science "tell" about a given Creator for just in mind, for not any destruction or annihilation here instead?

The tools I could be making here for that of nature, could be still a toolbox for that of the same, when also quantizing,
for still not any believing or Credo here instead.

In such a way, you perhaps define that of completeness by being infinity here instead, except such a thing for still only meant.

Just think that any science could be proven by means of infinity (or), next you could have it, by the way it only could be.

Again, sense, for only that of meaning, and next I also was quantizing such a thing for the meaning it perhaps still only could be.

Not finished yet.

Again, should I interpret nature for only valid, for not any flawed or invalid here instead?

What if I dismissed or rejected any Logic for also Religion being such a thing, and only quantized nature here instead,
for the material it perhaps could be?

But next that valid is also making it true for only telling, for not any invalid or false here instead, becoming only Logic.

Should any ghosts be only false for not any materializing, or should I rather believe here instead, for not any prove or proving?

So, clue for not any Claim, and I only interpreted nature by such, for not any false here instead, when only being invalid.

Any key for that of science, and next also enough, for not any true versus false, for only valid versus invalid instead.

Oh yes, but next proving nature for the valid it still could be when also true or genuine, for not any false or invalid here instead.

"Does God exist", and next only a Proof for that of a Falsification, only because false could be the valid answer you could make.

So, choose between valid versus invalid for only a select, and (the rest falling out).

Mmm, so next 2<3, and perhaps I was not proving any Fallacy when it comes to Religion just either.

Do you next think that 2<3 is valid for only being provable, for not any Falsification (or false) here instead?

So, tell me about any completeness, for not whisper in the dark just either, for only making it?

Should I prove nature for only the false or Falsification I could make it, and not any true or valid here instead?

So, building blocks of nature, for that of complementing itself, and next it also includes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event

Event or Event driven here, which Conclusion here for that of a nature meant to be?

Follow me, for just being the leader, and next it also materialized for also quantized, for also the Proof it could be.

So, part of, or component, and it still constitutes nature for that of a meaning, for only being part of it (or element).

What if I sought any validness, for only the Proof I could be making it instead?

Should I next be proving science for only true, or validness/validity, for not any false or Falsification here instead?

In respect, for that of nature for its validness, for not any Gods eyes instead, it became only false, for only untrue.

So here God's wisdom also becomes the true you could make it, for still not any false, only because nature should be such a thing.

Say you, say me, for not any wisdom here instead, because here I only believed in nature for the clever it could be, and not any else.

Any picked, for not any rooted, and next you only took it from me for only being a thief, for still not any believing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Also the disambiguation page here, when having to choose between any Justice or science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_encounter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog

So sweet, except the little dilemma I came across.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle

In which way does the Laws of gravity make for or determine a circle, except for perhaps the Geometry it could represent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry

Any right versus wrong, and still Justice for only the same, for not any Principles of nature here instead.

This for only the discussion at PrimeGrid for still not any constant in the making, like pi, for example.

But only that for still only Euclid, next also Newton and also Einstein, for still not any wrong they could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

But here only Proof is the best thing we could do or perhaps make, for not any believing instead, when still Empirical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof

Any laughter and ridicule for still only dismissing, you also could be making it a False statement by only claiming such a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

But here scientific evidence should not be any Court of Justice either, for only a couple of things left deciding.

Our notion of interpreting, is only nature still left to be giving, when we could be witnessing and observing a couple of things.

As you know, the thing thought to be relative, also could be infallible, in that it could be past any science or Religion for only explaining.

The pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope could perhaps be telling about beauty, except perhaps not any new.

Is a circle still only infallible for not any incomprehensible or complex with respect to pi for only its properties?

So which Proof with respect to an answer, for not any nature here instead, for that of its inner-working or making?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Again my give and take here for the little believing it could be, when that of part versus whole for that of given nature.

So prove different Truths for that of a making, when also answer for the same, and such a thing could still only differ.

Are humans any sacred, for still not any Biology or Biodiversity here, next for a given Earth of a making?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity

Everything is relative, for only the words of Einstein, and next you make it precious Earth for only the same, when also living.

Any science for only speaking, and next it became completion for the same, for only that of all and everything included.

Keep to the small, for also regular, and next also standard, for not any given whole of just believing, when it could be at least magnificent.

Any Universal principle, for next only speaking, and it could be such for that of making a choice between Religion and science.

Perhaps a Cosmological principle of Perspective here instead, when trying to comprehend nature for its complexity or purpose.

I guess you do not take or understand that, for still only the relative or infallible it could be, for that of such a possible understanding.

Here I could still try proving aliens or E.T. for all its means, when also Existence for that of the same, given still nature for a making.

Only that it became the disliked word "Creation", for not any Big Bang or Instantiatiation instead, when still only trying to prove E.T.

So, mention the word infinity here once again, for still only the best we could be making it.

Only Proof versus counter-proof, and it becomes nature for its given Truth, when also magnificence for just the same.

So, take any aliens or E.T. for just granted, and next still having to prove such a thing, for only the Principle it perhaps could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterproof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

The first link should be wrong, while the second one perhaps a little better.

Hmm, should any or the infallible nature we could make it, only be thinking for just the same, or should we still prove it?

What if I was supposed to be proving for only the divine, and not any nature of that of making here instead, only because it should be science?

Evidently, dear Watson, but next you was only proving for that of the infallible, because such a thing was set or meant for a given nature.

Attribute for science (that word), next also attribute for or versus given Religion, for still only meant.

Only that I was proving (or at least trying) to prove nature for that of its completeness, except only infallible here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Apologies, forgot mentioning this name above, for the great philosopher he once was.

You know I still could be making a shortcut by just thinking, except only becoming a shortcoming here instead.

Which great scientist is next making it such a shortcoming of nature, for only the relative or infallible it still could only be?

Reminds me of absolutes, where c could be still a constant, and pi no such thing at all, for only being a transcendental number.

Left stuck for that of meaning, next also opinion, when perhaps a given Creation also became Instantiation for the same,
and next it became both space and time.

Say you, say me, and next also pros and cons for the answer we could make, for not any true versus false instead.

Should any science be invalidated, next only a False statement for that of the same or such, for not any nature here instead.

Prove me for only sitting in the chair, and next also nature only existing for the thing or matter it could be, when still only relative.

Which thing are we really supposed to prove here, namely that of aliens or E.T. for that of their Existence, and also part of nature.

So, prove me for only that of believability, and next it became only true versus false for the same, and still not any nature here.

But next perhaps a philosopher did not need or have to prove any thing he could be saying just either.

Unanswered questions only still, and here listening to the music from the YouTube link related to the JWST (or mirror, if you will).

Just heard that someone doing the shopping, was shot to death by the Los Angeles police.

But next that such a thing needed an internal investigation, for not any interrogation it perhaps could be either.

Should tell, that I am giving the police such an excuse by means of an internal investigation, for still not any sorrow here instead.

Dat-dat, but here just my own opinion, in that such a thing for only happening, became only too heavy-handed.

Ask me for not being any Probability, except perhaps only Coincidental here instead.

The JWST is producing some spectacular images and graphs for some beautiful new Science.

Fantastic!!

Enjoy!

Keep searchin'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Sorry, I got drunk last evening, together with also vaning or deteriorating health.

But here a program on my History Channel last evening, where it became the question of the body having a possible soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

So here Murder she wrote, for not any Credible evidence instead, because here I chose to make it a scientific interpretation, and not any religious.

Any forever for just endless or timeless fashion just for the same, and the Universe became created in a blink of a second, for just a moment.

But also that the possible dismissal for only rejecting, could be still the question being asked, for not any belief in aliens instead.

Again that validity should precede or go before any Proof for just only stated, except that Evidence could also be that of real Facts.

So here not any Theory just either, but only that you could presume aliens to be for real when still only making assumptions of such things.

Are humans for that of life only sacred, except still not any nature for its completeness, where each thing could be that of respective parts?

But here only immeasurable, for only relative, when it is impossible to make any comparison for still only the infinite Concept.

So here for still everything possible, it could also be impossible, when also immeasurable or uncountable as well.

Making infinity a possible Equation, because it could be still consisting of or having several parts or elements, it ends up similar like E=mc2.

But only too soon, and you dismissed a couple of Facts being any relevant, when making Seti@home into hibernation.

Really, asking for only questioning or querying, and it becomes an open question without no answer, when still the subject of aliens or E.T.

Does nature end up having possible thresholds or limits for making it the Drake equation or Kardashev scake, and it still only becomes limitless.

Therefore it becomes the endless Proof without any Truth, for only the question we could be asking, except that it could be still only nature.

So here back at the soul for only mentioned, when it could be still nature here for that of its Mysteries, for not any Religion here instead.

Only that I tried quantifying nature for that or its worth or value, when also wealth or magnitude as well, for still not any unquantifiable.

Here timeless fashion, for only a lack of time, and it becomes Eternity here instead, where the soul could still be present or existing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

So here only take my question for granted, for only the answer coming back in return, for that of such a thing for only proving a couple of aliens.

Prove any aliens for still not any singularity, and it could be the experienced pilot here instead, telling about what he possibly saw or could be seeing.

Does nature fool or mimic you for only its presence, and it becomes only a virtual nature for not any real here instead.

Only that the moderator could be still asking me to be proving any aliens for their Existence, for only the Credible evidence it perhaps could be.

As you know, I could still make or set a preference on nature for that of its infinity, for not any "valid Proof" we could be making here instead.

My impression is that we are not any alone in the Universe, so therefore only hide and seek for such a thing, for not any splendor here instead.

So throw my arse for only dirt, and not any wonders of nature here instead, for only the incredible or magnificent it still could be.

Just inclined for only selfish, and I could also be daring for not any hesitant here instead, and it becomes an implied nature for only possibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implication

So only force a possible meaning upon me, for not any validless here instead, because such a thing should only mean turmoil and Chaos.

In such a way I also quantized possible stupidity or Idiocy, for not making it any valuable here instead, for the also the precious it could be.

Do I next believe in a possible Creator, for not making it any God here instead, only because the latter should be still only Religion or Belief?

Again, pros and cons for just only believing in a couple of aliens, for not making it nature as a given whole, and I rather choose the latter.

But here still that of Death, for only a notion, except also an Event for just happening, when it could be still a gravestone as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Could you next quantize any infallible or infallibility for only the common term between Religion and science it perhaps could be?

But next only time as being part of the Universe, for that of both space and time, when also Eternity for still only the timeless fashion it could be.

Making any Religion part of infinity, it becomes only the part I could quantize for being immeasurable, except still only unquantifiable.

Meaning that the Empty set, for only 0, zero, nada, or nil, could be still quantifiable, for not any ghosts or dreams instead.

So here only prove infinity for that of its Existence, and not any part of nature here instead, for only the whole or finite it could be.

Only trust Logic for not being any invalid, and it becomes only an opposite or converse Proof here instead, for that of a Negation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

In such a way, it becomes quantizing or quantifying nature for that of both material and immaterial, for only the Proof it still could be.

Only that I dismissed any Logic for being flawed or erroneous, and next also the same with any Religion, for just only believing.

So here only float in a dam when on the surface, for not any submerged, because here not any reference points I could be making.

Rather I meant I should be quantizing any infinity here instead, for only the material versus immaterial it could be, and next also prove for the same.

So here still only infinity, for that of a set preference, when also both space and time, for not any believing in Religion here instead.

Are any ghosts, for also dreams, still only unquantifiable for being immaterial, or should I still prove such a thing for that of being valid?

Here infinity is supposed to be making for a given whole by means of a definition, except that you could still both quantify and unquantify.

So next I was only proving Religion for not being any quantifiable, and therefore I was still only believing here instead.

Next, converting any ghosts or dreams for only the possible science it could be, and next only impossible, for not any Religion here instead.

For a Reply To in my native language (Norwegian), it becomes the following as listed.

"som svar tilMelding 2103911.", where it becomes a missing blank before or preceding "Melding 2103911",
in that it should be "som svar til Melding 2103911".

Quite annoying, when in English or American the full sentence in orange color reads
"Melding 2103914 - Postet: 27 Jul 2022, 14:12:42 UTC - som svar tilMelding 2103911. "
for that of the whole sentence, and here only an example, for that of the post of Mr. Kevvy.

Either preceding, or at least it should be having a blank for "tilMelding 2103911", and should be "til Melding".

Therefore either in the link, or the text itself, and should better be fixed.