Also this note in my GMail inbox during the day and also a bit of a sad note as well.

Being told that the coming or next Monday, a bit too early for my taste and also should have rather been on a Tuesday, but during that day, a ceremony will be held at
the adjoining Churchyard, or rather graveyard for my deceased father, who passed away on last March 21.

The living dead, perhaps, but except for my father being my father, like my mother being my mother because, or perhaps except of the sexes and also a couple of other things.
I mentioned the fact that he could end up being pulverized granite, by means of that of a typical burial, rather a cremation process is being used and for this a placement of an urn next to the gravestone.

The fact is that each generation living on Earth are for their respective accomplishments, meaning both success and failure.

My father chose to become a sailor as a young and when returning back, he kept most of the stereotypes.

Settling down in my city of birth, he chose to become quite smooth and even across that of age and this is one of the facts I am missing him.

Yes, stumbling on his words and sometimes repeating himself when it came to the words, that of smoothness is something that really should be acknowledged.

Except for that of reading the newspaper and also playing the piano, the usual guess, or maybe thought, could be that of making a crossword with your left hand and next think about
possible words using your right hand.

Is perhaps the game for this supposed to be that of Chess, or could it be that of MasterMind?

My words for his perhaps, except for those "syllables" which you also should know.

Think before you act, or maybe the opposite way around and you could be having my aunt for this, but not necessarily my father.

I think I inherited most of the features from my father, including or perhaps except that of possible eyesight, which makes me that of near-sighted.

Dumb, dumber, dumbest and where is next the genius?

Oh, so perhaps make it that of a "discipline", meaning a computerized such, rather than any possible results or achievements we seek to obtain.

The question becomes, why is it so?

The answer could lie in the fact that our quest for a given understanding, meaning answers to important questions, could lie, or perhaps be emphasized by means of that of Philosophy
and next such thinking.

Meaning that of "corresponding" thinking for that above and guess I am not stupid either, meaning a possible idiot.

Listening at the music for "Vangelis - Blade Runner 2002 Esper Edition" does not make any sense when making any similar guess about ourselves possibly being alone in space.

Really, the fact that I am supposed to be told so, by an astronomer with the name of Frank Drake and please excuse the possible irony.

What if the Drake equation, as a "Probabilistic function", happens to be similar to that of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Here choosing to use the name of the latter, except for that of Equation only above.

Is such a thing as Probability involved, or even that of Statistics?

Either, or, perhaps, or maybe neither, nor, only because 0 could be -1, or vice versa.

Guess you already may be having the answer.

Except for the possible balloons, I happen to make a possible difference between that of Micrografx Designer and that of CorelDraw, because one thing could be about possible science and not
necessarily any balloons.

Where, or in which way are you supposed to question that of possible science?

Is it perhaps that of numbers for such a thing, or could it rather be about the Method of Proof?

If we could think of possible evolution by doing so by means of the dinosaurs, is that of evolution possibly "Deterministic" because it could happen to be for a given cause?

Not any alien or extraterrestrial visitors here, because if so, this could rather make a fool of myself.

Yes, that of "Causality" for a given purpose, meaning principle and not that of "Casuality", meaning a pasient in a hospital room.

Guess what, make up your mind and perhaps think for yourself and if so, it is still supposed to be science.

Except for the comma, of course.

My apologies for having the weekend beer on a Thursday evening.

The only thing is that the pen could come loose as a result and next becoming a bit too much.

It definitely is part of your life when it happens, but you are not supposed to be learning such a thing when at school.

Possible childhood experiences being part of your early life could be about both accidents and also sad or mediocre things as well,
but both the kindergarten as well as that of school should be both a playground and also a place for learning.

Needs checking for the correct place, but I was directed at a page at arxiv.org for that of a relevant study, or perhaps result for this.

Next, this page is part of Cornell University and therefore I went to their page.

Watching the video or presentation, or at least some of it and the sequence having the colors, showing part of nature, was not too bad, but the same for giving a
presententation of the people, including that of students, did not fell in my taste.

Here I still think Berkeley makes it slightly better, but also there is a discussion about Seti@home perhaps being something else, by perhaps having its own place.

Why not make it the Seti Institute instead?

Perhaps the answer could be that while that of technology and possible thinking could be related with each other, they are still two different subjects.

Is a piano supposed to be a technical device, or should it rather be an instrument, because of either wording and the fact that there is no processor inside?

Also in my thoughts are that of a professor at Berkeley, who passed away a while ago and definitely was both distinguished and also a good man.

Except for that of RIP for the noble man, I end up making a college something else than a kindergarten.

Therefore, a college may not be the same as a University either.

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

Here a little bit strange, or perhaps surprising, because I chose to key in Alumni here.

But rather the fact that this word is plural and for this there should be a single meaning or definition of such a word.

Next I choose to compare with myself, because although not necessarily a "professor" on my own, even when being called or named so by my grandfather,
I ended up at home and probably know a little more about things than when graduating at school.

Is a doctor the same as Dr. only because he or she could be at a technical school or college, rather than a University?

Or is he perhaps a dentist making an income from his or her own business?

He may be able to fix or plug the hole in my teeth, but at times it may not be successful either.

Part of research, including scientific research could be that of obtaining a result based on the principle, or perhaps method of trial and error.

We are assumed to believe that electricity could be part of our lives, together with the Laws and Equations making up such a thing, including that of both volt, watt or wattage,
ampere and so on.

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

Listen to the sound of music instead and it becomes both ohm and decibel for the whole thing.

But next, we should not forget Benjamin Franklin either, who chose to be running for the lightning using a kite.

Lightning is electricity and so is also the reason for the light in your rooms.

You do not have to be a physicist in order to use a chair and read a book or a newspaper, because such light is in fact electrons being streamed by means of a current.

The rarely observed phenomena "ball lightning" is a real phenomenon being part of nature and part of lightning and thunder.

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

Make it perhaps down to earth if you will, but the collection of pictures once being stored on my disk is supposed to be technological devices by means of appearance.

Are we supposed to believe that life could be quite common in the Universe and not only confined or limited to that of Earth?

The story being told about Billy Meier and his encounter with "Semjase" could be one such thing.

Apparently being a human, or at least human-like, also it became a "she" because of being a female.

Perhaps the answer could be that the possible "idea" which could be in your head, next thinking that such a thing as a UFO could carry you at other places,
only because it could be the size of a dish for your food, or maybe even room for a human inside.

If you happen to be the scientist working at the Seti Institute, such an idea could perhaps be in your head as well, because perhaps believing in "E.T." could make such a
thing possible.

Except for the little man, or perhaps rather old man for such, or maybe rather the short temper which again could make us think back at evolution,
that of the "Alien Interview" could next make us think this could be so.

Both dolphins and chimpanzee are supposed to be intelligent in much the same way as ourselves, but we have still to either learn, or perhaps prove any direct communication.

Both verbal expression, by means of spoken language and the words in writing are examples of both thinking as well as intelligence.

Make it perhaps a wishful dream instead, except for perhaps being a painter and it could be about that of conscience.

Are we next supposed to be speaking about possible "Angels in the sky" as well, only because Erich von Däniken chose to be doing so?

Or what about the story of Ezekiel, who happened to come across something being described as "wheels inside wheels"?

If you happen to be a mathematician, or possibly physicist, such a thing as "order out of chaos" could perhaps tell about the Creation of the Universe.

Not necessarily so by means of the use of the hammer, but perhaps not necessarily because of any "Commandments" either.

The fact is that Religion and Faith always is supposed to be such a thing and next that of science the other, but if that of Creation and here Matter Creation could still
be used for a possible explanation, we could also be looking at "Angels in the sky" and next perhaps think that there could be other explanations.

The fact is that like that of Matter Creation, we supposedly are left at such things as Laws and Equations in order to understand both evolution and ourselves,
but next not the same for perhaps understanding the wishful dream which could be part of our sleep.

In summary, at least that of technology for one given purpose and that of the possible mind for another, but ball lightning is not supposed to be any technology at all,
but still the shining lamp in your room makes it impossible to forget about such a thing either.

Am I supposed to be perhaps a debunker or at least a skeptic because I could be an astronomer and next think that lightning and ball lightning should not be the same?

What about a couple of other things and if so where does such an idea, or perhaps concept come from?

Is it still supposed to be a notion, or perhaps idea coming from your head, or is it rather because you were "told"?

So it goes, but if so the whole thing probably becomes only one among several others.

Apparently something is missing, or it did not become finished.

In the meantime, I will try logging off with the current session in order to continue the tasks.

I went back to Number Crunching in order to read Vic's thread about "My computer builds".

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=77152

Rather make it the last post in the thread, rather than the picture in the middle.

The only thing is that the pictures need to be clear, or at least sharp when it comes to their appearance, or otherwise it will be of less value.

Indeed it is Vic's thread here and a better one as well.

That of building computers for possible use is something which you could do with a purpose in mind.

Also Vic happens to be running Seti@home like many others here, including myself.

What are the possible words for this which could be used?

"I have a dream", perhaps and for this I sometimes confuse Martin Luther King with that of President John F. Kennedy, except for his name.

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

Really I do not want to get into a discussion about that of nationality or gender here, but only notice the possible name confusion.

Same goes with Billy Graham as well, who was an evangelist.

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

For now I choose not the be using any bad words about a couple of people, even though at times it could not be that silly or stupid thing of doing.

If I happened to fall in love with someone, probably something which never is going to happen, it will not be the same as that of a bad day either.

The Egyptians chose to bury their Pharaohs by making Pyramids for them as a means of a given respect and possibly even more.

The initial launch of Seti@home as a scientific project became that of using computers for such a thing and that of the Pyramids were probably not in any such thoughts.

Are we perhaps any better off today than in 1999, only because that of numbers could tell us one thing, while that of possible dreams or the like, maybe something else?

Choosing to edit above, it became a thought about making that of dreams a possible disorder for such a thing, but next such a thing is not the same as PTSD either.

If one thing could perhaps go for another, that of Omens should be a good example.

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

The fact is that Isaac Newton, despite being an eminent scientist, probably never was thinking about such a thing as the "Falling man", only because he discovered, or at least understood
that of gravity, meaning the force for such a thing.

A new or recent research field or study is supposed to be that of "Quantum Entanglement" and here I will have more later.

You probably know that I chose, or perhaps found it more easy to be dealing with the subject of Cosmology, because it could be about that of gravity, or maybe the Falling man,
possible Conspiracies, or Conspiracy Theories which could be related to either that of terrorism, possible "Little Green Men", or maybe even some Politicians which at least should be trusted.

If the heavens could be full of stars, such a thing could possibly be part of a possible dreams as well, but still perhaps not the same.

To some people that of flying dishes being observed in the air could be an indication, or perhaps clue that we are not alone in space.

Other people may perhaps believe in possible Conspiracy Theories for the same, but here any relationship or possible similarity could perhaps be disputed or discussed.

If such a thing as "Heaven and Hell" could be the words of a musician like Vangelis, rather than the same from Billy Graham, it still may not be any science at all.

The reason why we are having such a thing as Creation myth, is the possible guess or maybe assumption that both our existence, as being part of the Universe,
and also that of the Universe itself is having a possible "Creator" for such a thing.

Think of both Design, including that of Intelligent Design as possible innovation, or maybe a similar Creativity and next exclude that of evolution for now.

The fact is that such a thing as a "Method" should not be the same as that of any Creation myth, but what next about that of evolution versus the Uncertainty Principle, or the like?

Not forgetting such a thing as both the weather and also Prophets like Nostradamus either, because each of these things could be part of a whole story.

Here I still would make a difference between such a possible Creator and the fact that we may not be alone in space, because of a given thought about both such things as intelligence and also
that of technology for such a thing.

There should be a difference between that of a wild guess, or perhaps a thought from the start and that of a result which could be proven beyond doubt and therefore be part of a solution, or at least
representing a possible answer for such.

If we are not alone in space and this next could become proven, would such a fact be included in the Standard Model, or perhaps that of the Scientific Method?

Should it perhaps be easier to either "believe" in the "tech guys" behind such things like extraterrestrial craft or UFO's only because they happen to be such?

For now we probably make such a thing neither that of a solution, or even that of a Method, but rather think of such a thing as possible intelligence beyond ourselves.

In fact I have asked for this before and stil unable to find this, but if the presence of extraterrestrials should become proven, there also should be a statement for this.

Like that of a "Declaration" of sorts and here I do not get any further when it comes to the exact wording.

Because here I lost the word and it becomes that of "Consensus" for such a thing, because it should be that of scientists being in agreement with other when it comes to such a thing.

Next, perhaps "Trust your feelings, Luke" and next believe in at least those numbers because we should know what this is all about.

Are we supposed to be having a possible "debate" about that of science, only because we know the fact that one thing could perhaps be "believed", or perhaps trusted, while another perhaps not?

We should know quite well that science could be carried out whether or not you happen to be an atheist, agnostic, or possibly even debunker, but what about a possible believer?

Ask the Pope the similar thing and he most likely will be able to tell that we are not alone in space.

Before the rest of it, noticing that I am being forwarded to my Inbox after sending a Private Message.

Perhaps not the best thing either and could need a possible change.

Like perhaps repeating myself at times, it probably became a posting of it.

Having an orange rather than an apple after a bottle of soup and like the heat of the room, could need a logoff for a continuation of the session.

Perhaps having a look at Ludwig van Beethoven in the memory of my father right now, because of that of possible hidden things which could be lurking or somewhere around.

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

So, "Eine kleine Nachtmusic" perhaps, or maybe something else, because I am not familiar with this at all.

If perhaps so, it could be the "grand finale" at the end of a session, or at least when it comes to a major discovery in that of science, but not necessarily with a bottle of hot soup or an orange.

Back to that of "Quantum entanglement" perhaps, except for that above and for this perhaps not about Budd Hopkins either, but rather about someone else.

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

Back later.

The lull being experienced in the middle of the day and also the dinner as well is not always that good experience.

Opening up the window for possible cooling of the room and in an almost clear sky, a condensed trail of white is visible going almost north to south or the opposite, possibly slightly more to both east and west,
but not very much.

A bit unusual I think, because regardless of any direction, this means the North Pole from the Continent and I do not think this is the usual thing.

In front of my monitor for that of both reading and writing and the computer standing at the right, it may be easy to forget that some 6,000 individual stars could be visible with the
naked eye on a moonless night.

Compare with a limiting magnitude of +11 for that of a 2.4 inch telescope and the total number of stars visible could be around 10 - 15 million, with the lower number more likely.

Assumedly a probability of any intelligent life elsewhere could be made or determined by only using the Drake equation, but what next about that of reality?

"Yes, I love astronomy" and so on and this could at times be the theme, or possibly the subject, but in fact could be almost forgotten as well.

Next, perhaps jump on the bandwagon if you will and think that the chance of any extraterrestrial life should be large, or perhaps good, because of the wonders of nature, including that of the
Universe, making up everything.

Fall in love with it, like your possible wife and also such a thing could be part of your life.

The Universe is definitely no painting at all, but rather a given reality which is not about any virtual reality either.

Also the fact that the same thing is also that of "either / or", or perhaps "neither / nor", because in some places, there are emptiness, or voids, while other places are filled with both stars and galaxies.

Much or all of this could perhaps be related or attributed to that of gravity, but for now, gravity and evolution itself, or on its own is not the same thing either.

I think that in order to understand that of Quantum entanglement, a look back at history is perhaps needed.

One thing being recalled or perhaps remembered is that of "Cobe", as that of a scientific satellite for the research and study of the Universe.

Edwin Hubble used both his eyes, together with photographic equipment and of course his pipe, in order to detect cepheids in the Andromeda galaxy around 1924.

But except for that of both microcosmos and also elementary particles, I rather leave this subject for other people.

Next the fact that my knowledge about anything else than pure astronomy happens to be at best incomplete.

If Edwin Hubble knew that Cepheids in the Andromeda galaxy made this object separate from the Milky Way, he also knew a bit of Cosmos.

Also that I happen to speak only for myself here and not necessarily Eric Korpela, who also happens to be an astronomer.

Such a thing as Quantum entanglement and the like are once again either mathematical or physical subjects which are trying, or at least attempting, to give a knowledge about the Universe we are part of.

Understand such things as elementary particles, including possible "Quarks" and next you also understand the Universe, including its stars and galaxies and also clusters of galaxies.

Are you perhaps able to see those elementary particles using an electron microscope?

The Curie pair, meaning Marie and Pierre Curie knew about radiation from heavy elements from their experiments.

Such radiation is not necessarily any heat either, because photons are responsible for heat and not any X-rays or gamma rays.

So why not perhaps follow up on Isaac Newton here and not necessarily Niels Bohr and next treat the subject likewise, or in a similar way?

The fact is that such a thing as Quantum entanglement is not for neither you or me to possibly read, or at least understand.

Next also the fact that most people do not necessarily bother about such things as galaxies, or clusters of galaxies either.

Ever heard about the Uncertainty Principle, or should I perhaps say the Mandelbrot set?

If so, you probably know about the Butterfly effect as well.

Although I am wearing glasses myself, not necessarily such glasses which makes that of virtual reality possible.

Believe in the wonders of nature and next you could believe in the wonders of technology as well.

Neither the Mandelbrot set or the Uncertainty Principle is part of the Standard Model (of Physics) as far as I can tell.

Tell me that such a thing as virtual reality could be part of science and the answer could be both Yes and No.

Do the same thing for that of both the Uncertainty Principle and the Mandelbrot set and we probably know the answer.

We are not supposed to question such things as neutron stars and Black Holes, because we know they are part of nature.

Rather we could perhaps question those things we still do not know is there, or find it reasonable to think does not exist at all.

In my opinion the debate about evolution should be separate from a couple of other things in the same way as that of Intelligent Design is supposed to.

Rather we could end up with the fact that gravity itself could still be a common term for that of other subjects.

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

When getting back at this article it should be evident or clear that this should not be about any crocodiles or dinosaurs at all, but not necessarily that of a similar Creation myth either.

We could end up in the trap of perhaps believing one thing for another because of the difference between words or their meanings.

If you are supposed to believe that Charles Darwin was about crocodiles rather than dinosaurs, or maybe vice versa, rather the fact that he was an atheist and next nothing more.

Next, perhaps believe in possible "Angels in the sky" and you could be a believer and still that of Intelligent Design versus Creation myth for such a thing.

Are we perhaps making the same error of judgment when it comes to possible "Quantum entanglement" versus that of any Angels in the sky"?

Again the point, or fact from my perspective that both Cosmos and the Universe should still mean something else than microcosmos, or even Quantum entanglement,
when it comes to a couple of things.

I personally think of the Universe as that of a "Creation".

Next the fact that either scientists, or possibly theologists choose to make a possible difference or separation by making perhaps one thing that of Matter Creation, while that of another,
that of Creation myth.

Any Conspiracies associated with that of either Intelligent Design, or Creation myth?

Again, probably not so, but also remember that of "Heaven and Hell" for such a thing.

Is that of God supposed to be such a controversy, or even Conspiracy, whether or not, or regardless of any possible Matter Creation or Creation myth?

If God is supposed to be speaking for science, the answer should be quite clear, but if the opposite should happen or be true, we may perhaps not know the answer.

Yes, Chuck Yeager definitely knew how to fly, but did he ever give a couple of other things a thought?

Now I will have the cup of coffee before the rest of the beer and also I will need to wait for the sunset.

So, perhaps the cup of coffee right now, past 2 PM.

It became a little long, so I make it short.

There was a display error of sorts when posting the previous which became that of NVIDIA Share.

Next, ran the installation software for the update, which also is dealing with that of stereoscopic (3-D) options for possible gaming.

Unrelated to that above, I also happened to read about a recently disovered Trojan horse which is affecting many computers.

I was thinking about the possibility of perhaps having made fun of a couple of scientists, if not some members of the Church, but why not still look at reality?

If I told you that there is no such thing as aliens and extraterrestrials, such a thing would not make things any better either.

Look at the sun in the sunrise and also at sunset.

The fact is that the Sun is orange of color when at sunrise, but almost red when at sunset.

Also, if I am not wrong, some two pair of 3-D glasses perhaps unrelated to that above, lies unused in my shelf.

Is this the same as a pair of red and green filters (two of each) for my binoculars?

The answer here is most likely no.

A scientific project, or in fact scientific experiment like Seti@home is supposed to be about accountability and next this for that of numbers.

Not forgetting that much of the processing being carried out are on raw data alone.

The difference between such raw data and that of an intelligent signal does not make myself a possible genius alone, whether or not I am the lucky finder.

The fact is that Isaac Newton probably never met Semjase in real life and still that gravity could be the way of propulsion through space in order to reach a destination.

Ask the U.S. Department of Energy about the possible use of fusion technologies for that of both propulsion by means of engines and also the same for that of fuel and most likely only a limited answer,
if any, is coming back in return.

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

Something else in the meantime, perhaps.

If I do not remember wrong, when at holiday abroad together with my parents, my father wanted "Swordfish" for dinner from the native people.

Guess I could be rich, or at least they were poor, but I do not recall whether that dish was being served.

Undersea volcanic vents could be one of the reasons for that of life on Earth and its origins and not necessarily any dinosaurs either.

Like that of Creation itself, it could also be about "Tears in the rain" and for this possible Creation myth.

Any better suggestions welcome, but at least I think there should be one.

We should definitely know the difference between right and wrong, because it could be about moral and deeds and not necessarily any Justice.

So why question such a thing as God at all, when it always becomes in a given context?

Should it still be "Heaven and Hell" because it could be Creation myth, or could it be something else?

Matter Creation tells me one thing only, namely that of the creation of the Universe and therefore nothing about any possible Creator at all.

Should tell that there happens to be a couple of fine words for this, including that of both "Eternity" and also the possible divine.

The mirror tells me about a possible reality and nothing else at all.

Still, that of the possible unthinkable could be possible "Mysteries, magic and miracles" and still be no such science at all, but not for any worshipping either, at least by doing so
while attending Church.

If the Ten Commandments of the Bible should be the thing making my regular day, at least when choosing what to do and also not to do, I would become stuck,
or at least hampered.

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

Here again it becomes something else and I happen to disagree with the contents.

Rather I am more of the belief in the original story being told about Moses being delivered the Commandments when atop a mountain in the Sinai desert.

The fact is that luck could sometimes strike double, or two times and also the same could happen with the opposite.

If so, is it next about Probability?

Lost the better words meant for this and next it should come above, because here two different things.

But the reason for this could be that of entertainment for the masses and also the story about Maria Magdalene, which easily could be confused with Maria, who happened to be the
mother of Jesus.

If doing possible science in the name of God, it most likely would become that of Billy Graham at best and here really not what I was thinking about.

My guess is that there could be something in between the Janus face and that of possible Eternity which has yet to be defined by means of words, or a possible description.

Therefore still unfinished work.

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

For now I have not looked at Moses yet.

Becomes the cup of coffee first, before the rest of the story.

Anyway, so Moses right now.

Where should I put in or place the line breaks?

The display error is a reminder of possible graphics and that not necessarily only software is needed except for the card itself, but rather that of "hardware rendering" for such a thing.

You perhaps noticed the painting featuring Moses and also the similar picture in the Wikipedia article for Moses as well.

Rather I should make it the painting featuring God instead and the similar picture for that of Moses for any better.

Many years ago we had a television series featuring Greek discoverers and this time not any philosophers or scientists, but rather sailors.

Their adventures at sea and next quite close to land, made them shipwreck at least one time and also should not be confused with Jules Verne for this.

Becomes yet another story and I will return back to that later.

Come on Mr. Shoestak (Seth Shoestak) and for this do like Dr. Bruce Mcabbee and write about your subject.

If we should ever define such a thing as "conceptual reality", we first would need to define that of a concept, before doing the same with that of reality.

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

I better finish off the rest of the beer and next go to bed, because the day becomes too long to live with, or perhaps endure.

Looking up Eternity in the Wikipedia, it becomes a bit of a disappointment, but perhaps I already knew.

Therefore reading the Talk page for this right now and it does not always happen.

The simple story being told about a magician who chooses to reveal his tricks, is probably far from the similar when it comes to that of Eternity versus a couple of other things.

Bob Lazar told us the story about being inside an extraterrestrial craft on the reason of technical curiosity.

Perhaps a story being told about extraterrestrial craft, but not necessarily any "extraterrestrials" either.

Should perhaps not be using names here, but ask Chris S the same and the answer most likely would be no.

Both that of technology and innovation and also that of energy itself makes a couple of things look simple.

Not forgetting that of diversity either, including the fact that there are some 200 billion stars in the Milky Way alone.

Any definition of "critters" rather than possible orbs and rods and the fact that such things could also make up possible intelligence.

When looking at Seth Shoestak, I happen to see a "consciensous" man for a lack of a better translation.

And not necessarily "conscientious" either, because here Google Translate offers the alternative suggestion or translation rather than the initial one which possibly could be used.

Anyway, if that of evolution could mean the possible difference between a crocodile and Mr. Shoestak, it is because of brain capability and here that of both intelligence and conscience,
rather than something else.

If humans became intelligent because they adapted to their surroundings, why not the same with that of the dinosaurs?

Did they perhaps become intelligent because of this and next developed a possible conscious mind as well?

The question probably still remains to be answered, because the brain itself is most likely not the important subject here.

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

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

I still choose to make a Primate that of both monkey and apes, including the Lemur.

Neither lemurs or elephants may be able to travel through space, but perhaps so when it comes to possible extraterrestrials.

If so, not necessarily because of that of gravity itself, but rather that gravity could be used as an engine in order to warp space in order to travel across time.

Next the fact that such a thing as a Monolith probably is of no general interest at all and therefore goes down the drain.

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

Again, I happen not to swallow the whole story as it is being told, whether or not it is true, or rather could be about possible science, or perhaps not.

Therefore, please have me excused.

The movie "The Day After" could perhaps be viewed as that of "Tears in the rain", but supposedly is not any such or that either.

Rather, a Monolith makes me remember the movie "2001, A Space Oddysey" instead and here also back at the Greek for the same word.

In the world of science, that of a void could mean a place when matter more or less does not exist or for some reason is therefore empty space.

Instead, the Greek chose to be using the ether, or aether, for the similar thing.

The fact is that the Universe blew up from more or less nothing, by means of that of inflation and next we call it the Big Bang.

Possibly the word "Theory" needs to be defined or clarified, because there should be a difference between the Steady State Thory by Fred Hoyle and that of the Big Bang.

Regardless of Matter Creation or possible Creation myth for such a thing, we still are speaking about evolution as part of the Universe and its development.

I better have the rest of the beer despite being only 4:30 PM.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=81398

By the way, both the "Post to thread" as well as "Subscribe" is now at the upper left, while "Edit" for that of a post is in the middle and also dimmed when it comes to the color of the box.

Here it should be a marked hyperlink only and also I click on the Edit box when wanting to make a new post.

Should tell that I am not in Number Crunching each day right now, but it became so because of keeping track with the regular scheme, except for News.

I notice it being mentioned that of technical resources and also that of possible money, or grants and donations.

Use your head, literally, so to speak and next you know such a fact.

Some people may think that finding possible extraterrestrial life in space could be an impossibility, while others may think it could be served by means of dishes for that of food.

Define the initial purpose of a project before next start thinking about numbers and next you have that of teeth for that of hens or chicken, if not that of poultry.

In the world of science, or at least Seti@home that of a NAN, or QNAN, possibly with decimal points for separators in between, could mean a possible intelligent signal.

Next the fact that I am not the scientist for this here and rather choose to leave it for others.

But only the fact that I happen to know about it and next would have to dig up most of it for anything else or more.

The story being told about Semjase could be a possible true one, because Billy Meier could be a possible idiot, but not necessarily the same for the whole event as being told.

Also it should be "Semjase" rather than Semjase, because except for perhaps wishful dreams, a possible extraterrestrial does not necessarily mean a possible affair or even any such love either.

"We choose to go to the Moon" and so on and also the similar "farewell" speech being offered on the Moon by geologist and astronaut Harrison Schmitt.

The fact is that these astronauts at times were observing something while on the surface of the Moon, which they thought of as "visitors".

The human being could be viewed as a possible entity by means of its appearance and the same could go for that of an extraterrestrial as well.

If there should be a difference between that of Semjase and maybe something else, such a thing could next be attributed to that of nature for the lack of anything else.

My guess is that we could probably define the possible technology being used in space by that of a Type I civilization, because we have such things ourselves, or could be on the drawing board.

A project leading to that of a manned mission to the Moon is not a scientific project at all, but rather a possible venture, for the lack of a better word.

Therefore such a project is always about technology first and next about that of the people which should be involved.

Except for that, do not forget that of ambition as well, if not necessarily that of any greed.

So, if the story could perhaps be "I came, saw and next, or finally won", it could be the words of Julius Caesar.

Semjase is in my opinion nothing such as a spiritual being or entity at all, but rather a human-like, in flesh and blood, making us a visit from the Pleiades.

Except for that of technology itself, I could in fact relate such technology to a possible Type I civilization, but next perhaps not a Type II civilization.

But also the fact that a Type II civilization could be even more fascinating in order to get a grasp or perhaps understanding of.

Closing in on 6 PM right now and perhaps I better should get in the fridge.

Back later.

Anyway, before I go for the rest of the day, also the sad fact that I visited arxiv.org during the day as well.

The fact is that science sometimes could be quite easy and sometimes quite hard, but still need a telescope in order to possibly succeed.

I ended up perhaps thinking that the weather, or perhaps climate here on Earth could be predicted in advance because of a similar advancement in that of the use of computers.

Rather it ended up being a discussion about both the Butterfly Effect and also that of the Uncertainty Principle, if not that of Nostradamus as a Prophet for more or less the rest of it.

Regardless, for the lack of any similar, should it not really suffice, or be sufficient?

Fall in love with someone and it could perhaps be spoken words rather than any science.

Because that of prediction is not supposed to be that of Probability either, you could be left with believing in the possible "Upper deck".

According to Bob Lazar, there were some nine craft in all, lying stacked around, or perhaps more or less on the shelf and next perhaps one which was working.

Believe it or not, I happen to believe in such things as aliens or extraterrestrials myself, but next the fact that possible Type II civilizations could be even more fascinating.

The Kardashev scale is supposed to be about both energy production and consumption, meaning output, but next also the fact that both technology and also intelligence could be
important factors.

Make it that of the stars in the Milky Way, if you will and not necessarily God as the possible Creator of the Universe.

If the latter should become the main point, it rather should be or mean that of Matter Creation, rather than that of a Creation myth, because the latter probably falls short of target.

Blame such a thing on the scientists when it happens and not necessarily the Theologists and also the reason for why this actually happens or is being so.

Or, "Make it that of the stars in the Milky Way, if you will and not necessarily God as the possible Creator of the Universe", together with the rest, as usual.

Right now enjoying the second last beer, but getting back at it later.

Oh, what if it for some reason became another story?

Should it still go by my name?

The problem is that "exist" versus "not exist" could be a possible Logical issue, if not perhaps anything else.

I mentioned the passing of my father earlier on and the fact that while the left arm is still supposed to be different from the right arm,
you also could end up having kind of a "half machine" when or while still running as either a machine, or possibly a human.

One arm or hand could next be digging in the sand, or perhaps rather soil in order for plants being inserted or placed into the similar soil.

Before checking, we probably, or most likely are having that of Botany for such a thing, but here it should be about plants in the garden and not necessarily any animals.

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

Except for the other thing as well, which needs a fix.

Therefore, the passing of my father should not come in the way for the fact that the Universe could still a place related to that of a playground and not necessarily a smile.

You probably know the reason for this as well.

Have a look at the Calendar and next make a guess of the year of birth for that of Princess Di (or Diana Spencer for short).

If I am not wrong, Prins Philip is in at 95 and Queen Elizabeth is at 91 years of age.

Make perhaps a choice of retirement and this apparently should happen, or perhaps go for Prins Philip next Christmas or so.

Again, large caps in the double meaning of the word, or at least twice.

Btw, or by the way, "Prinze" is a pop or musical artist". Therefore rather Prins above, but suggestions of course welcome.

The fact may be that when possibly speaking about a "six-shooter" (again), we could be back at the main reason and not necessarily the cause.

At least so for the bullet itself, or maybe the barrel, except for perhaps pulling the trigger.

Six bullets in a chamber and next pull the trigger and you have a chance of 1/6 of survival.

My guess is that Charles Darwin, as an atheist, never gave a thought about such Probability at all.

Poor Princess Diana and next the fact that eating disorder (and not any sleeping disorder) most likely took her life.

If I for some reason happen to be red-haired and also with "freckles", I could perhaps believe in a weakness of nature itself, rather than the possible ugly voice.

If that of Probabilty means the single bullet in the chamber versus those which could still be missing, at least we could be having part of science, because it could be about "Chance".

Such a thing could eventually mean either the Ace, or possibly the Joker in a card of games, but not necessarily the "Trump", Trumf. or Triumph either.

Believe me or not, but at times such a thing as Cosmology could be about science, but next the fact that Victoria Beckham most likely does not sell either and also we should know
the reason why.

Claim your innocence if you happen to be a Brit, or British and next go on the offensive when it next perhaps is needed.

And do not forget the "freckles" either, because that or such a thing should still mean possible innocence.

Anyway, it became the funeral of my father yesterday, meaning Monday, because here it ran into Wednesday.

Ending up with a couple of beers on Monday evening after the event, I was quite tired when getting to bed.

The strange or awkward thing is that at least I could have a cup of coffee when starting up, but despite being an adult, still the glass of milk is needed and also a bit of waiting time.

I guess it is not only the ugly dull in the late afternoon or evening when it comes to the lighting of the sky, or perhaps illumination, in order to separate from lightning strikes.

Is perhaps science, or possibly being a scientist a possible gift, by means of talent, or other abilities or skills, or could it rather be part of your regular day, only because you know it next "happens"?

The regular thing, when it happens, is next part of your ordinary life only and not about such a thing as science at all.

Benjamin Franklin ran for those lightning strikes, as you know and probably never noone ever questioned his abilities.

The fact that the thinking of scientists have made it possible to come up with that of the Standard Model and also the Scientific Method in order for which it supposedly is being made.

If perhaps looking for Little Green Men and next in the sky, you could in fact be blindfolded when doing so.

I checked in with BOINC earlier on and among other things, read Gary Charpentiers post about listening for narrow band or bandwith radio transmissions.

I think that at times we could have it all served for us when it comes to the dinner being served on a dish, except for perhaps the post itself.

One of the possibilities which could be around is using a video camera, or recorder, in order to catch life around as it happens.

Another could perhaps be listening for sound in either a legal, or perhaps illegal way and next think that intelligence could perhaps be found.

If possible aliens or extraterrestrials could be around, my guess is that they do not have to whisper in order to be heard.

Even so, their possible shouting does not necessarily makes the being heard and most likely not any whispers either.

You may perhaps recall the initial launch of Seti@home back in 1999, where that of the personal computer became the symbol for at least the computing effort or part of this experiment.

Rather than such a thing as believing in possible "frescos" on the walls of churches, rather the subject became that of ufology and next the possible assumption by at least ufologists,
if not scientists, that we are not alone in space.

A possible intelligent civilization except for ourselves, which may have been around for a million years, do not necessarily change or evolve that much over some 10,000 years.

Most likely both the Egyptians, Mayans and Incas knew about how to count numbers, but next their depicted symbols became that of hieroglyphs.

The possibility that the grave chambers of the Pharaohs made for travel of the soul after their initial passing is a subject probably not still touched upon.

Rather I am back at the fact that both the sunrise and the sunset makes for a world which is part of a given reality and nothing less or more.

Such a thing as a painting by Rembrandt, Picasso, or Vincent van Gogh does not necessarily tell about any truth when it comes to that of the world, but rather the fact that
as a human, you are equipped with some five senses which could give you a possible perception of the world.

Staring into a brick wall or the like, is not supposed to tell you anything at all, but such a thing as the equation E=mc2, could perhaps tell you a little more.

That of being prejudiced or preconceived, is another thing being considered and perhaps not forgotten.

Before going to bed last night, I checked in with Jules Verne in the Wikipedia.

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

In fact it started up being a story about that of belonging to a church as a citizen of a country, but not necessarily any personal belief and next that "Evangelism" could be part of such belief.

Therefore we make it the proper spelling of the word and the fact that there could be such a belief, by means of the Church, which could be a "Free church" of sorts, but this time, or still,
part of the Protestantic church, for which Martin Luther was its founder.

Here again the possible name confusion and should therefore not be Martin Luther King in any way.

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

Also looking up Martin Luther from that of perception, so I think I am not completely lost.

If you are so lucky at being in possession of a software like GW-Basic, or QBasic, at least calculating or computing 2 + 3 could be a possibility.

Using such a thing as Java, which I do not have that much around, you could perhaps make a Hilbert curve from a square, or even a pentagon.

The problem becomes that of biting or chewing across too much at a time and rather coming up with a conclusion at the start, it becomes yet another posting of facts,
which next leads nowhere.

A statistician doing a census among people making up a country in order to get knowledge about possible habits, could next use such a thing as deviation for that of calculus,
rather than such a thing as a gaussian function.

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

If such a thing as eavesdropping could next mean "Read my lips", at least it could be science at times, but not next any "Statistics" in any way either.

Therefore, perhaps coming up with a pentagon as a figure or shape, only because you are having MicrografX Designer, or CorelDraw as your software, most likely would not help either.

The possible "eavesdropping" being made by the Seti@home client is being made on such a prejudice or preconceived fact that extraterrestrials in fact do exist and therefore is not part of
neither the Standard Model or the Scientific Method in order to actually "prove" anything.

Rather we only take it for science and next make such a science for granted, because at least it could be about ufology.

Is perhaps 0 the same as infinity, because that of 0 could mean zero, nil, or nothing?

Rather the fact that nature is supposed to be about diversity and the dance of the bees when coming across a catch of honey is only one such example.

Such a thing as "Mysteries, magic and miracles" are not necessarily about any art either, but also that the whole subject still appears to be in the shadows.

Perhaps recall kind of a science fiction movie, which rather became one of those "genre movies", namely that of "New York, 2021 of sorts".

The main character is one-eyed and going by the name of "Snake Plissken".

You perhaps remember or recall that movie and also that one of the figures went by the name "Brain".

Next, which brain is this supposed to be all about?

Here at times, we had in the past a discussion about the subject "Intelligent Design", which should be perhaps a bit more about reality, but still perhaps a bit of confusion relating to the fact that
such design could be about possible manufacturing and construction principles and also that of design itself.

A story being recalled right now tells me about possible brain surgery being performed on a subject and next that he was waken up in the middle in order to check out a couple of things.

The reserve or spare pair, or set of astronauts aboard the long voyage for Jupiter were supposedly lying in hibernation, which supposedly is kind of sleep, or hibernation.

But during the meal after the mentioned session above, it became a quick mentioning of the fact that a state of hibernation could also be obtained by means of a "freeze down",
or in fact that of cryogenics.

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

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

The second link should be the more relevant one, because of the fact that it may not be totally unlikely that a Type I civilization could use either hibernation or such Cryonics,
in order to travel between different star systems in space.

Not such a thing as a Cryogenic engine either, or even the vents at the bottom of the sea, which could be the reason for life on Earth, at least for one thing,
or perhaps the other, from either our perspective, or perhaps the way we are supposed to believe in science.

If you are supposed to believe that "Lucy" was our ancestor as a human, next look at both the Dinosaurs before that, or even the Lemur, for such a thing.

The fact is that modern science could choose to use such words as "constructs" and "dogma" for a couple of things.

If you rather could believe in aliens and extraterrestrials. you also should believe in planets orbiting other stars in the Milky Way.

And not necessarily neither the Commandments as being delivered at Moses by God, or the fact that "Star Wars" could be a science fiction movie, where both
Type II and possibly a Type III civilization could be involved and next that it all could be that of technology.

For now I think that the subject "Creation myth" could at least be having different angles when it comes to possible approach, but whether or not still perhaps about such a thing as
"Heaven and Hell", at least we are having different wordings when it comes to the subject as a whole.

The fact is that we do not see any "Seth Shoestak" in the Alien Interview either, but still are supposed to believe in intellligence and conscience as making up nature.

A given functionality could always be measured against a similar thing, whether it could be possible effectiveness as best, or at least a way a thing is supposed to be working.

Such a thing as evolution should always mean or tell the good for the better and even not the bad, or not working either.

As soon as it becomes anything, or even more. it becomes either "Angels in the sky", or possible spirits, for any better.

Next the fact that as scientists, we are not supposed to believe either.

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

Only the disambiguagtion page for now.

I happen not to be a programmer myself, at least not right now, but a year could be divided in both seconds, minutes, hours, days, or even moths, making up your 100 year life.

The fact that every four year is a leap year, except for those not divisable by 400 (and not just 4), next makes the single year also roughly 52 weeks of seven days each week.

The first time I happened to mentioned the Special Relativity by Albert Einstein here at Seti@home, it next became like that of the Shaplow superclusters of galaxies for the same.

At least you should wish that I perhaps could dare, or at least daring.

If "Mike and the Mechanics" could mean a possible musical band, next the fact that the word "Mechanics" could in fact, or actually confuse when it comes to its meaning.

Either it becomes that of "Classical Mechanics", or it could be that of "Celestial Mechanics" for the same.

Because when coming across the word "Construct" or "Constructs", I next did not think that this was any "Mechanics" either.

"Tick-tock" and next it becomes your mechanic watch being worn on your arm, or wrist, but not necessarily the digital watch either, because of a given preference.

If you did not know, that of Special Relativity is part of Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein and is in fact dealing with the subject of time.

Some people are in fact able to make it a total of 11 dimensions, but here I leave it with just four, making it the four dimensions of space.

Gravity is supposed to "warp" space and that of space could next be the "space-time continuum" for such a thing.

The fact is that the equation E=mc2 could give an explanation of the relationship between matter and energy, but not necessarily the relationship between that of gravity versus time.

If possibly doing so, we also have to both choose and know what is supposedly the better science.

If such a thing as evolution could be similar to that of possible CASE analysis, which could be about the life cycle model for at least a project, that of life cycles itself could also relate to,
or perhaps mean that of life itself, because a given life may not be measured in only seconds or minutes either, but also by means of possible epochs.

We probably know when it starts, at least when it comes to ourself, by means of the process of birth and next the cycle of life.

Life itself is not supposed to be about any evolution, but it could be about teaching or learning, depending on your point of view, or it could also be about events which could happen and next
totally change your life.

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

Again the fact that science could at times take a couple of things for granted, but next the Janus face should not be visible here.

Rather that of an eclipse of the Sun by the Moon and also a total eclipse for such a thing, could be a possible event.

In astronomical terms, the Event Horizon rather becomes something else, in that it becomes the place where space itself meets the force of gravity.

Therefore we also choose to make that of infinity the possible singularity which could exist and be found inside such things as Black Holes.

If I ever was of the opinion that such a thing as soul travel could be possible because we could have such a thing as time travel, I am perhaps not totally convinced.

When it comes to that of both astronomy and astrophysics, such a thing as a Wormhole in space has yet to be observed and right now has not been done so.

But because it rather or most often probably ends up with that of a notion of time as that of a watch being worn on your wrist, it could perhaps be tempting at bringing the subject a bit further.

You probably know that Einstein was never fond of Quantum Mechanics, because this means that everything needs to be "quantisized".

The latter word even I myself is not that fond of either, but rather the fact that the current subject "theme" in that of Physics, is that of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Perhaps the one thing missing here and still not too well understood or explained, even by myself, is that of Cosmology as a whole, or as it is being taught, versus that of a couple of things
which could be possibly assumed.

If you are the one here perhaps not willing to accept or recognize the fact that 2 + 3 = 5, a couple of other things may perhaps not be so either, but still, or at least it could be related,
or pertaining to that of science.

My guess is that the opposite of galaxies and galaxy clusters could be that of infinity and not necessarily that of any voids in space.

If such a thing as infinity is a possibility, at least by that of a singularity making up a Black Hole, we next know that this is about a possibility as given by nature and not necessarily about
any constraints, or limits at all.

The usual, or regular thought, may be that such a thing as life for that of a star could mean that of a similar destiny as well, meaning its death.

A death of a star, by meeting its destiny is that of shedding much of its mass into space and next becoming either a neutron star, or a Black Hole.

Except for that of birth itself, at least when it comes to a star, it becomes that of Matter Creation and this time by means of accretion of matter, because we know that such mattter already exist.

If we could choose to look at such a thing as Matter Creation differently, or in another way, it possibly could become that of either Genesis, or at least Creation myth for such a thing.

The fact is that neither science, or at least scientists are supposed to be speaking about a possible "Creator" for such a thing.

In my opinion, at least that of the Church, meaning that of both Theology and Religion, possibly do not make these things any better.

If such a thing as "Sins versus forgiveness" could be a possibility, it could be so when it comes to that of the Catholic Church, but probably not much other either.

Such a thing as hibernation does not mean that of any death either.

Rather it means that of possible survival and next "Survival of the fittest".

In fact I believe there could be different approaches, both when it comes to possible wording and also to that of a possible "belief".

If such a thing as science could be used in order to explain one given thing for another, it possibly could be about that of Matter Creation versus that of Creation myth,
but the answer or true fact may be that this is not so either.

If such a thing as Religion and Faith could be having a possibly "credibility" among scientists, we perhaps could be slightly off.

Right now on the two last remaining beers in the fridge, so better post what I have.

Back later.

Yes, the good, bad and and ugly for at least a couple of things, except for the possible words.

This is really not responsibility, or any area of such a thing either, but I probably told you that I got some help at getting rid with insects in my home.

First of all, it could be flies, or even big black such ones and not necessarily the one crawling below the door entering my toilet.

Why not such a thing as that of a possible "symbiotic relationship" for such a thing and not for this the insects should take a possible responsibility, if not care.

Try picking on an insect standing on the floor and it will next shy away.

Is this only because it is supposed to be having wings, or is it rather the fact that it could choose avoiding your fingers?

In fact, insects are not supposed to be any birds either.

When I happened to be having "visitors" a while ago and next being recorded using a video camera, it became that of "Wingless wonders" for such a thing.

Please don't tell me either, because I also happen to be running PrimeGrid as my secondary project (in fact 50/50 when it comes to resource share).

You know, the question perhaps ending up with me is the way in which science itself should perhaps be moderated, or perhaps dealt with.

From my childhood years, I faintly recall that while at a refill of petrol using a gasoline station, in this case Mobil for such a thing, one of the small gifts being awarded, was that of a
jewelry stone being picked, or collected from the bottom of the sea by means of an oil drilling.

Yes, pick it, at least when it comes to such a drilling and next at least offer it, if not awarding it.

Also the fact that while harvesting either corn or grain for that of bread for your breakfast is not the same as being a king of oil drilling, or at least any harvesting,

If I was or happened to be the one or perhaps even chosen one, who could come in here and next think that time itself could be an answer for everything, next perhaps think again,
because here the answer probably should be no.

If I rather could think that possible time travel could be possible, next perhaps think I could be an idiot rather than a genius.

Always the skeptical "eye", if not perhaps a given opinion for such a thing and next think that jumping on a bandwagon could next make me a scientist, rather than something else.

In fact, this is not what it is supposed to be about either.

Think about it, but either or at least the gaussian function should be at least the function, or possibly Method, in order to gain or obtain a couple of things.

A function could next be about either programming, or maybe that of Statistics, in order to perhaps or possibly prove a given or certain thing and for this, we still do need the scientists.

If that of Statistics and the like could be about both Mathematics and also that of computing, we also are supposed to know what a given "Method" is supposed to be all about.

Namely that of Methodology for such a thing.

If such a thing as Algebra being a possible substitute for 1 + 2 = 3, in fact I would be somewhat, or perhaps a bit disappointed.

Why do perhaps think we are living in a scientific or scientifical world, only because we could at times be scientists, or even computer scientists?

Many years ago, a possible fracas, or maybe even "brawl" lead to the events at the Heysel football stadium in Brussels, Belgium.

If that of a chain reaction, or possibly even cataclysmic event when it comes to that of a "sequence" of such a thing happening, at least we should know that something,
or perhaps a given thing happened and next which one and also why.

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

Only the disambiguation page here for now.

I perhaps mentioned this before, in one of my better moments, that science is not supposed to speak about any God, whatsoever, in the same way as God is not supposed to be
speaking for that of any science either.

If such a thing as a "cataclysm", or even a cataclysmic effect, should be either one thing or another, you next only have my words for this.

If by means of a possible "understanding" of that of God, you perhaps or probably would not know about such a thing as sins versus forgiveness either.

If supposedly doing what you are being "told", next such a thing could also be a possible Commandment and next also a thing about or related to that of Religion.

But not necessarily any science here, of course.

Finished the beer right now, but still a rumble being heard from the stomach when getting out of bed.

There should be no secret that when it comes to a project like this one, apparently still no success yet.

Perhaps join the club of "enthusiasts" and next it could be the club of ufology, or maybe ufologists and next we probably could have the answer.

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

I went from Jules Verne in the Wikipedia right now, to the important subject of Physics, which except for that of Mathematics is one of the main pillars of science.

Perhaps not the best word which could be used either, but in order not to fall, you would need to support yourself from such a thing happening.

My guess is that even not the best moments are able to bring me at the precise or exact point for what I wish to say.

A conclusion should be a summary of words and not necessarily from the start, but next you will need the rest of the story as well, which could go anywhere.

A combination of both a bad keyboard and mouse, as well as a possible overcommitment when it comes to a couple of things, makes me thing of a possibly logging off the session
and maybe a restart as well.

But I also gave a thought that while both and could do it even better than Bruce Mcabbee when it comes to that of Physics, or maybe that of ufology.

Not forgetting that of both the coldness of space and also the fact that no air or water is present, we could still be visited from space at times.

Such possible visitors could possibly be a technologically related issue, or it may even be that of perhaps a spiritual one.

There is no secret, or perhaps denial of the fact that those people who could be scientists, next also could be either atheists, or agnostics and therefore perhaps deny the story of the Bible.

Believe in such a thing as "Star Wars", at least for your entertainment and next you have both the Death Star and Command ship of Darth Vader.

Really, or in fact I do not think it is so.

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

If such a thing as Intelligent design by means of subject could make me think of the ants in an anthill, or perhaps the dance of the bees in their hives, I could be left at choosing between that of functionality,
or if not so, that of instinct or maybe even aggression instead.

The word aggression is perhaps not the best one here either, but rather it should be made a difference between humans as possible mammals and that of both reptiles and possible predators for such a thing.

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

Keying in "Predator" in the Wikipedia rather gives "Predation" and here both a difference from the movie and also that of reptiles, at least when it comes to the word.

You may perhaps recall from the Alien Interview, the subject using the word "Dogma".

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

In my opinion, the Wikipedia is not using the correct explanation for this word here.

Make both peace and perhaps also love at times and not that of wars, or possible indecency of behavior, but even the crocodile as a possible reptile or even a "Predator", or the similar,
is not about any intelligence or conscience at all.

Always the same debate, I guess and both you and perhaps me could get slightly tired of this.

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

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

I think the above subject is worth both reading, as well as considering, because at least the second article got a bit better right now.

If Charles Darwin as a pioneer in the understanding of that of evolution, that of Intelligent design is still supposed to be a way of approach when it comes to a given understanding of God,
and here apparently from a scientific point of view.

Despite having a possible personal belief myself, or maybe even a "believer" as such, at least when it comes to that of both intelligence and even conscience, there could still be a difference.

If there still could be that of either science for one thing, or maybe even something else for yet another or something else, a knowledge of that of Matter Creation does not necessarily
explain or tell of a possible Creator for everything, only because of a possible choice or selection of words.

If the Bible was synonymous with that of the Church, probably this could be explained by means of both that of Religion and also that of Theology for such a thing.

In my native, or perhaps local translation, that of "Creation myth" becomes perhaps slightly different when it comes to its meaning.

In the word of science, it could perhaps mean "In the beginning", but such words could also be used for that of Creation myth as well.

If I ever gave a hint about where we possibly could be going, I perhaps did so yesterday, or the evening before that.

Both life and death should be synonymous with each other, but rather than life itself, we make it that of birth.

Such a thing as creation of both stars and galaxies in the Universe are based on accretion of matter by means of gravity and next that of matter which is already present.

Therefore it could be slightly tempting to use the word or phrase "In the beginning", as a means of perhaps understanding the moment where everything came into existence
and this time by means of the Big Bang.

Really I do not have the problem with that of the Big Bang itself and next that it should be about that of Matter Creation.

The question could rather be that of "why", rather than that of "how".

A possible Creator of the Universe next would be a divine such one and therefore we need to define that of divinity.

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

Compare with that of materialism here on Earth, which should not be about that of Matter itself.

Being reminded about the conflict ongoing in Syria, both such a thing as that of hatred and also that of sins and forgiveness could be their respective things, but not necessarily
that of divinity for any of these things.

Another time of day perhaps, it also could become of being a mentioning of a bottle as a possible excuse for that of a given belief, but not right now.

But the important fact is that Matter Creation was a one time event only and lasting only a very short moment.

Both that of creation of stars and galaxies, like that of life itself by means of the birth of a child, are events which are possible, because of other factors making it possible.

In terms of that of Philosophy, we could be speaking about possible "Existence".

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

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

For such a thing as both the Universe perhaps ending in that of oblivion because of its expansion, or rather inflation, the opposite of birth as well as life for that of a star,
could be the Black Hole and its singularity.

If that of the singularity could perhaps be the "End of the road", it probably could be so, at least when it comes to that of science, but even such a thing does not necessarily explain everything.

If rather it was the start, or beginning of the road, we are back at the birth of a star and also the possible explanation for such a thing happening.

If I could be Albert Einstein, which in fact I am not, I could perhaps be philosophing, or at least speculate about such a thing as possible Wormholes, or that of Multiverses.

If I am not wrong, I mentioned that of possible soul travel yesterday, because I think that there is more to it than death itself when it comes to that of humans.

For the lack of any better, that of "Eternity" could be a possibility, but also there could be other or different words for this.

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

My guess is that both matter and that of energy could be for a reason, but next the fact that there could be even more to it, like that of the aura.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

Becomes the second link from the disambiguation page (that of paranormal).

For now I have not read the contents yet, but next the links could perhaps be put together, because that of the Aura is not necessarily related to the Paranormal, but rather is a thing which could be seen.

I probably mentioned this fact as well.

https://www.cpdn.org/cpdnboinc/forum_thread.php?id=8288&postid=56268#56268

Yes, speaking about the weather and such and except for me as being as usual.

Three dots are not supposed to be the words from a scientist either, so at least for now should say, or perhaps tell that I am still working on this.

Dang (and here not janneseti), but you probably guess what we are speaking about.

Edit: Probably not such a thing here as "planetary unfolding" either, so, why not perhaps look back and next think that you happen to know everything?

Needs an edit above for this and back later on.

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

Except for that, always the better wording, which I am keeping a tab about as well.

Right now I do not have it.

The above meant for my own place here and right now please have me excused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnTZipv03M

Oh, stupid people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyzw2R9eFE

So why not perhaop this i the meantine and next the fact that we are not supposed to speak about any such one, or ones, only because I happen to be a scientiest.

Make it perhaps or possibly the "spoken words words" for this or the same and we probably have heard the whole story before.

And I was having the weekend once again and today it became the problem with the discs which took a couple of hours.

Another restart for the making of this one as well, but next only needs adding this fact and also the finishing line.

Initially meaning to post in Science, non-SETI, about that of possible parallell Universes, but chose to put it here instead.

Therefore I probably lost my posts in edit, but needs checking, because the browser now remembers the pages.

In fact I think that both janneseti and Chris S may be both right and wrong here.

This way of order for the names, by the because it makes it easier to say or perhaps spell.

The fact is that we choose to make our understanding of nature by doing science on it and also that both these subjects, or at least name for, are having their own
respective articles in the Wikipedia.

Of course and this was also what I was going to say, the fact that both Coincidences and Contradictions does not necessarily hide that of reality either and for this,
I was thinking of the cold winter morning, where the car needs to be put clear of both ice and snow before next starting the engine.

If that of energy is making such a thing as radiation possible, we know that matter is having such a property.

The symbol "E" on the first calculator being used many years ago, was because either it became more than eight digits, or as Chris is saying, just 1/0.

Next the fact that we could question what that of numbers are supposed to be all about.

Count those numbers and it becomes 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . and so on.

See the wood for the trees if you will and next no pun intended.

Losing a bit during the start of the day, I am back at just 96 digits for that of a number, which is a composite number.

Because rather the fact that we could choose to deal with both the Uncertainty Principle and also that of parallell Universes, for a lack of anything else when scrolling down the text.

Rather than being only that of the three Laws of gravity by Isaac Newton and next the Theory of Relativity by Einstein, we now also could include that of possible multiverses as well.

Regardless of one thing being perhaps true or not, we could perhaps believe in both neutron stars and Black Holes, because they might be detected in space.

Still leaving that of both Wormholes and problems related to a possible alternative ways of explaining a couple of things, except for possible scientific thinking.

An apparition in the sky could still be having such a different explanation and for now not necessarily making it any angels in the sky either.

For now I do not want to make it any ghosts or the like, because we never may know the reason for that of John's Revelation in the Bible, only that it possibly is dealing with
something else than the rest of its contents.

What angers me is the fact that psalms being performed, or at least sung in the churches, could be from the small book which is perhaps not the Bible at all.

If such a history should be about the birth and evolution of the Universe, either a book for this could be made, or if not so, perhaps a television series.

Either make it general, or perhaps stick more to the point, but if the Method of Proof, or the similar is supposed to be the given factor, we probably could easily discard one thing for another
and by just reading here, I do not think that science should be about such a thing either.

The sad fact is that making it more or less general could next bring the masses along, but when next getting to the point, it all falls apart and next need a repeat of itself.

Tell me about the Stone Age and you next have the Stone Age Man for such.

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

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

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

My guess is that for an understanding of the Universe, we need to make a distinction between that of microcosmos, the world we are a part of, ourselves, meaning the Earth and finally macrocosmos.

The Laws and Equations by Einstein tells about an equal way of measuring things independent of the speed of light, or the like, but that possibly contradicts the Uncertainty Principle.

Thinking of such a possible discrepancy, the question could be asked what came first, namely that of matter, or that of space itself, together with its three or more dimensions.

Here it should be that of the Big Bang for that of Matter Creation alone and that also the force of gravity also came into existence.

The sad fact is that by introducing not only that of Quantum Mechanics, as well as also the Butterfly Effect, the Mandelbrot set and also Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well,
we are not questioning our own existence as a civilization, but rather the origin or origins of the Universe.

Think you could explain that of the Mandelbrot set and next think you could explain the Universe and next I believe it not to be just that simple.

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

The Ice Age is not supposed to be about the Stone Age either, but still there are some similarities.

A number of years ago, I came across the word or wording "Cosmological constant" and the question of whether such a constant could in fact change over time.

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

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

Also that of a possible argument for such a thing and therefore notice the slight difference, but in the middle of the day, I rather prefer the first of these two links for the remaining part of the text.

If not wrong, the initial start of the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey", was perhaps not only the Stone Age Man throwing the stone or the similar into the air, but
rather, or in fact the "Dawn of the day".

Sunrise versus sunset, perhaps and also both the orange and the red sun for each such ones, respectively, but perhaps rather the fact that if we could think that there is a Creator
behind everything, including the Universe as a whole, we next could be left at looking at a couple of things by means of such a context, or perhaps perspective.

Right now I do not have in front of me a notion of possible "infinite time", except of perhaps that of the singularity making up a Black Hole as a result of the force of gravity
and not necessarily any mathematics, or calculus.

If that of infinity should be perhaps a concept of reality, we first have to define such a thing by means of that of mathematics and next perhaps in a different way.

Or perhaps rather "conceptual reality" above.

Such a thing as Dawn of the day could perhaps mean the start of yet another regular day.

But rather it could be the words "In the beginning" for such a thing and also the fact that these words came from a scientist.

If scientists could perhaps think of the Higgs boson as that of the God particle, what are the main ingredients, or perhaps precise or specific point for that of the Weak Force as that of
one of the four Fundamental Forces of nature?

Eat a birthday cake if you will and except for the possible cream, you also could be having the strawberry as well, if not the ice cream itself.

The fact is that the Big Bang probably is not a Theory anymore, but rather an established fact when it comes to possible thinking, or perhaps science.

We are supposed to believe where it started and next also where it could end.

I was tempted during the last week to believe that even the possible fact of a Creator behind our existence, such a thing a birth and death could perhaps be related to such things as
Coincidences and Contradictions, or the like.

But rather the fact that both of these are supposed to be part of our lifes and rather than that above, I rather could use the word "Event" for such a thing.

Reminds me about the Event Horizon for that of Black Holes and I could have that next, after the cup of coffee.

Why can you not just hide those silly ones?

At least the start of the day for the previous one, but right now having the cup of coffee.

Apparently still two beers remaining in the fridge and also a couple of left-over tabs which were kept during the restarts.

Needs finishing before posting, but also the fact that when doing so, the links may have timed out, so therefore a need for a copy and paste first, because when doing so,
meaning refreshing the page, or at least tab, the contents become lost.

I am also noticing the fact that while also doing that of factorization of numbers, at least I should believe, or perhaps trust the computer for such a thing.

The fact is that I am not supposed to forget here either, namely for that of a belief, or at least assumption that we may not be alone in space and that a possible story being told
only are a means of telling, or perhaps expressing such a fact.

Science is supposed to be science in the same way as Religion is supposed to be that of Theology for such.

I you could believe in "applied" sciences, you also could probably believe in applied Theology, or perhaps that of Religion and Faith.

If you could perhaps repent, or maybe convert a Viking as a possible heathen or pagan (and no necessarily an atheist or agnostic for the same), into that of a believer in that of Faith,
the possible opposite should be almost impossible.

Should tell that although being mentioned before, such a thing as the Christian Science Monitor, in my opinion is still too heavy about that of Religion versus that of science.

Read my lips as being an astronomer myself and next the possible logic in the existence of Black Holes in space.

In fact we take both that of space and the Universe itself for almost granted and not necessarily because there could still be science done.

So the older work once standing in the bookshelf of my parents, having a green cover and maybe some 12-15 in all, supposed to be kind of a paper based dictionary
related to that of both the Earth and also space.

The extended part of this work had an article about the acceleration needed for that of escaping the gravity of the Earth and next a fact that the example given was wrong.

This only by using a pocket calculator for this and not even a HP-10C still in my disposition, or perhaps ownership.

Perhaps a bit wrong to say, but is there a possibility that this could be wrong by means of a given or specific intent?

Rather the fact that at times a couple of things could become not spoken words, but rather hiding in the shadows and for this we are having a specific word.

If I could be discussing that of infinity as a possible result of gravity as a Fundamental Force of nature, we first have to define, or make that of gravity such a
Fundamental Force, even though the existence of the graviton has yet to be discovered.

Is that of Mathematics alone supposed to explain nature, or should we still rely on the elementary particles for such a thing?

Is Mathematics supposed to be "consistent" in its characteristics or performance, or could it rather be "inconsistent"?

The fact is that the Uncertainty Principle may not be a Fundamental Law of Physics (and not nature), only because the number pi (3.14), is supposed to be an irrational number.

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

If such a thing as gravity was non-exist, or perhaps not of any relevance at all, we probably would not bother about that of infinity at all.

In my opinion, infinity is not the same as eternity, because even though at times you could say that your soul could be living forever, we probably are not speaking about an infinity of time.

Yes, time could be running slow at times, but also fast and waiting for the bus is not the same as doing a couple of other necessary things.

If you perhaps could say "I love science", I also could well say "I hate science".

If I was the one coming in here and next either believing, or perhaps proclaiming that we are not in space, only because of someone lying on a table, it may, or may not be any science at all.

Next, you could be the one telling me such a thing and perhaps not only myself.

If such a thing as a Consensus should be needed, it still would rely on given facts for such a thing and therefore you also have to believe in such facts.

Something else right now in the following.

Is that of art and possibly talent perhaps more or less the same?

If I could be a Creative talent, we could have possibly Creativity, except for that of talent instead, but rather than being a musician like my brother, at times I could be trusting a possible intuition.

If at least I am supposed to be able to speak, there should not be any such Creatvity at all, or at least not talent.

I mentioned the painter earlier on and that a bad mouth when it comes to your voice not necessarily is the same either.

Part of the human brain is in the right part of the same and always that of being right- or left handed for such a thing.

Kills off more or less the rest of it when being mentioned and not necessarily funny when constantly being repeated.

Here at Seti@home we are supposed to be looking for possible extraterrestrial intelligence and next that intelligence could be that of "Cognitivity".

Keying in the word for this in the Wikipedia and I get "Cognitive science" as one of the results.

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

For now I have not looked at the other things yet, but if so, it perhaps could be about Social sciences, or therapies, as well.

The fact is that if someone ever told Seth Shoestak that he was behaving bad, he probably would not think so, only because he is a nice man and also a scientist.

In fact I happen to know it myself, because there was once someone who was thinking I could be mad and therefore would need a Psychologist for a possible therapy.

Also that while we could have both the amateur astronomer, we also could be having the astrophysicist doing his or her business as part of a paid job and also having a possible doctorate for such.

If Eric Korpela happened to be the one thinking he saw something in the sky, we still could believe in what he is telling, but not necessarily the man in the street.

Remember he is a doctor as well, because he is having a doctorate and therefore is a Dr. for the same, but not the most important either.

Is that perhaps the difference between the scientist and the possible idiot, except for that of himself, or could it be even more to it?

If I was the only coming in here and next claiming the existence of possible Wormholes in space, who should next believe me when it comes to such a thing?

Perhaps an astronomer, or astrophysicist, but at least not the same man in the street either.

Therefore, perhaps believe in such a thing as Inquisition, this time by means of the Church and also the fact that the Wikipedia is not having a formulated or specific article about the subject.

The fact that if science at times could be easy rather than hard, why not look at the equation e=mc2 for such a thing?

Neither that of gravity, or even that of time here, but still this equation could be telling a bit more than a couple of other things.

Also the fact that c, as being the speed of light and next also a constant is being squared for the same purpose.

If that of gravity could also mean possible inertia, we could in fact be having possible "slingshot" numbers, but next, have a bucket filled with water, next attach a rope to it
and sling the whole thing around your head in a circle, the water will stay, or remain in the bucket when at a sufficient speed.

The sad thing is that we may actually be back at the three Laws of gravity by Newton for such a thing and I am not necessarily a mathematician either.

But even so, only the fact that I happen to notice a possible discrepancy here.

Isaac Newton was definitely not a scientist dealing with that of elementary particles, but at least he was an eminent physicist.

If you could be discussing that of particle physics, also that of "Quarks" should be a relevant subject, but not necessarily right now.

If for some reason Isaac Newton could know about such a thing as a Black Hole, he perhaps could define that of infinity as well.

Speaking of a possible notion of such infinity is not the same as a possible notion of time either.

Infinity is only possible because of gravity and not necessarily any numbers either and for that of gravity, such a thing as matter is needed.

So, how much is your weight, perhaps and next do not ask a woman about such a thing, like that of the age.

Because I happen to make that of matter and mass two slightly different things and therefore both need a separate explanation.

If we rather could explain a couple of things, like that of energy as only that of radiation, also the fact that some or certain types could be infrared, meaning heat
and other could be ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma ray and still not visible for any of these.

I make that of radiation that of possible particles for such a thing, but also the fact that a couple of things also could be that of waves only.

Here not the same as that of radio waves either, because I choose to be more general when it comes to the subject.

Because of the possible non-existence of such things as both Wormholes and also possible multiverses, we also could be left with a similar explanation for that of possible apparitions in the sky.

The possible singularity making up a Black Hole is only a result of both matter and gravity and not necessarily any else.

I next could add that I perhaps could be slightly more open-minded when it comes to that of possible multiverses, because a Wormhole could be part of "our" Universe and next link with
other possible Universes, but also that apparently none does exist.

If I next could be a possible "believer", I also could believe in both Wormholes, or multiverses (parallell Universes), but in fact perhaps not so either.

The fact is that science at times could better be told not only by means of applied Mathematics, or even Physics, but rather be told or spoken to the masses in a more simple way.

For that of infinity itself, we are having the inverted "8" symbol, which next needs a lookup.

Becomes that of "∞" for this and needs a preview for that of readability.

Apparently working as it is supposed to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mNZVKeU6M

Finishing off the second and last of two beers before getting to bed.

Should that of a possible science, if any such, except for that of numbers itself, be any such science.

Here it apparently became the 4 * 3 rectangular box of possible selection options after finishing the playback of the video.

Why not just debate that of possible science, rather than either take it for granted, or perhaps not take it for granted and such a word for it?

The fact is that Bob Lazar was not allowed to enter the "Upper deck", only because he was too large and the same or similar deck was just to small.

But not possibly so when it comes to the aliens themselves.

I could in fact choose to continue on when it comes to this subject, because most likely it could be even better than only those numbers.

If I could the one who could be right, you may be the one who could be wrong, or maybe even vice versa.

"Believers" in possible UFO's, aliens and extraterrestrials are not necessarily any atheists or agnostics, even though the latter possibly could benefit science.

Rather the fact that we could choose to either believe in a given or told story, only because we could choose to make it science, or at least believe it could be so.

In fact, I happen to be an amateur astronomer myself, but for now doing this from the chair in my room.

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

This came to me while finishing off the other work during the day.

The fact is that while Creation could still be that of Matter Creation, because we should believe in the Big Bang, that of Creation myth could be telling perhaps a little more about ourselves
and also our possible destiny.

The fact that the possible Equations making up that of both the Uncertainty Principle and also that of evolution, could also tell about the possible afterlife, meaning the eternity of your soul
when passing away.

Again, I probably mentioned this before, namely that stars are being formed from accretion of matter already present and similarly, or next, the death of a star could lead to a Black Hole and next a singularity.

Therefore, both the process of birth and death, respectively, could also be having a similar explanation, namely that of Equations for such a thing and here I find a reason to either speculate,
or at least casting a doubt on the whole thing.

My father went into the soil by means of an urn being placed in the soil, besides a gravestone already being placed.

The remains in the urn are the result of that of Cremation, which is a process happening at quite high temperature.

The fact that he was only registered as a member being part of, or belonging to the "Free church", meaning the Protestantic church for this, but next that of Evangelism,
also probably became the reason that the priest chose not to take part of the funeral session.

This in fact, or actually makes me feel a bit sad, because in my opinion, there should be a direct relationship betweeen that of Church and state, at least when that of nationality is being concerned.

In my country, that of Martin Luther as being the founder of the Protestantic church is the main reason for seeking shelter in a church when perhaps needed.

But my personal opinion is that actually that of white could be even better than that of black for such a thing and here being reminded of the Pope.

Mr. Bishop of Rome, if you will, drop the drink being served during your sessions and also give a thought about that of confessions for that of sins versus forgiveness.

Except for that, I really do not love that of the Church itself that much, particularly because of the bells being heard all day, but except for that, I do think that Pope Benedict, is a very good Pope.

You probably know that the church should perhaps be a story being told about both a possible redeemer and also that of salvation, but why still the Devil in all of this?

You perhaps do not know the story, but apparently I was being told the true story behind all of this and also perhaps the best word of it all.

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_(theology)

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

For now I do not guarantee the links above to be working, because for now only directly from one of my files before checking.

If not wrong, that of the Purgatory is perhaps the most important one here.

Ask Dr. Stephen Hawking where it possibly started and the answer could be that of the Big Bang as that of possible Matter Creation.

The words "In the beginning", could therefore be about such Creation, because we could choose to do or make it so.

That of Redemption is a possible deflection or deviation of that of a possible Redeemer for the similar thing and next needs checking.

"Kick my ass" and next shame on you for trampling down on my earlier on when it comes to such a thing.

The figure, or perhaps depiction of Charles Darwin evolving from a monkey into a human probably does not make such a thing any better, because you still could be having the turtle.

If such a thing as evolution could be based on that of a randomness, or even Chaos, please define such a thing for me, except for that of both the Stone Age Man, or the Ice Age and so on.

My initial posting at the Climateprediction.net pages probably was the better one and the follow-ups did not meet any similar standard.

Nostradamus, as a possible Prophet, once again could give a possible appearance, or impression of that of Religion as the main reason and yet again, most likely a blind track.

The fact is that we are not supposed to predict the possible future based on a possible notion of time alone, because such a thing as "Travel into the future", may not be possible.

Only speculation, or perhaps a hypothesis right now, but you probably know that I was quite reluctant, during the day when it comes to a couple of things, including that of Wormholes.

Anyway, that of Cosmology as a subject is still supposed to be about both stars, galaxies and also clusters of galaxies.

Also that of evolution for such a thing and also that we are supposed to know what evolution in fact is all about.

Right now again not so sure, because despite the possible fact, or at least belief that UFO's found their way down that of Black Holes, they also could be coming from another "dimension".

We chose to make a possible "laugh" about that of multiverses during the day, but also that I chose to make it "parallell universes", which I think is somewhat better.

If you could be the one choosing to give a similar "laugh" of that of birth versus death, probably the same story all over.

We had a discussion about possible wording, meaning whether or not it should be that of "Collective evolution", or that of "Creative evolution".

For now, still not certain here, because the wording fell out of my page at Facebook.

Therefore, not necessarily that of any "absolution" for such a thing either, because this, like many other words lacks a similar explanation when it comes to that of science and only another
example that such a thing as Creation myth is not supposed to be about any science at all.

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

Only the disambiguation page for this right now, because except for that of "Supper's ready", I have not read the rest of it yet.

You know, at the end of the day, the muscical band Genesis chooses to make some nice and fancy music at times.

We as scientists should perhaps try doing a couple of things even better by just working even harder.

Any Equations for that of evolution in the same way as that of the Uncertainty Principle, or maybe the Stone Age Man, or even the Ice Age for such a thing?

And not forgetting the Butterfly effect or that of the Mandelbrot set either.

Also should be "possible" rather than "possibly" in the previous post, or perhaps vice versa. but unable to edit the contents here.

Makes it at least possible to give a laugh of it all.

Back tomorrow.