The caret was perhaps not the best example either, but both fractional numbers, like also repetitive, or irrational numbers like pi, are at least important subject fields, except for no need for looking below the blouse of someone, for just a hidden answer.

Ugly me, for it could be still just only Linda, for that of "Beauty and the beast", except for perhaps making it only a funny monkey for the latter.

Perhaps it rather should be a "Whizz" for a couple of things, when perhaps not any sound heard either.

Also that just believing in UFOs, or perhaps not, is not sufficient, or the correct answer, when we rather should be looking for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Proving something, and you could also be able to reject a couple of things, and you could end up making it an exclusive or (XOR), for that of Logic, if perhaps not any mutual selection between species either.

Away for a moment, and it became that of Ontology here.

Stephen Hawking was the first, together with Roger Penrose, to believe in their existence.
Tullio

---

Yes, tullio, but not only for him being an atheist either.

I went at YouTube for a moment, but with the problem of running full screen without the address bar, so here both author and the link went lost, but a better one here, when also the space environment itself, could be a factor.

Making it enriched uranium for a couple of things, does not make you any rich man, and therefore does Logic not tell about any betterment either.

Whether or not any visualization, or even a reflection upon your mind, a particular view on both bounds as well as boundaries, could be from your own Perspective, and not necessarily what nature could be having to offer.

Any separation between two objects should be that of distance, except for not interpreting one thing for another, by means of a join, or merge.

Therefore also differentiation when we could make it a difference, except for not Logic being the same as any Arithmetics.

Anyway, the Wikipedia makes it the Derative here.

But also funny that true is not false could be a thing to say, when an expression could be just a smile.

The old video for a UFO above New Zealand (Kaikoura lights) where the infinity symbol was being painted comes into mind, from just that of the Derivative, because both a curve and a half circle could be one-dimensional, except for not telling about any tunnel below the English channel, for that of a Wormhole.

Like that of WYSIWYG here and next trust your senses for a possible meaning, rather than science for doing the interpretation.

Kaikoura Lights Incident - YouTube

I wonder if just keying in a search from the main page of YouTube could be made possible, for only a text bar, because this could make it easier.

I went to the Nebula message board for a little more, and for one thing, David Anderson, I hope you are soon back from your holiday, because a couple of things needs to be done.

One is that of making a list of promising signal candidates available also here, because it could encourage that of Creativity.

Plotting individual pixels along an axis, could also make for a curve, except for perhaps not any gaussian needed either, for a promising candidate.

Perhaps a translation from German to English is needed here, because the second Law of Thermodynamics, was the question that struck also me.

The last sentence of the first paragraph makes me think that this is correct, and here the Wikipedia.

The old question that could be on ones lips, could be that of whether or alone we are alone in space, and not that of an Event horizon preceding the interior contents of a Black Hole, where you could end up sliding down a ladder first.

In order to go to bed, you first have to unlock the door, and next walk across the room, so here matter being compressed into pure gravity first, before finally encountering the singularity.

Topology

Topological space

In my native language, we once had a play game of sorts, with the name of "Believe it or not", except for perhaps not any Crossword, or rectangular diagram, for making it a truth table.

Rather that given properties of nature, should be the result of the Forces involved, and for this reason, we could also be making it Fundamental Laws of nature here.

Infinity should perhaps be the number without any end, but rather that gravity is being compressed into a single point, for where its size, or the size of the object, becomes undetermined.

Construct (philosophy)

Again this small deviation, for only the fact that objects could be having their respective properties, except for no relationship with any Fundamental Forces of nature, for which there should be certain Laws.

I need thinking a little more here.

---

First thought is that we are having Kepler's Laws of motion, for also Newton's Laws of gravity, and that there should be still an empty space.

Null and void at times, but perhaps not any empty either.

Is gravity the ultimate Force, for only the Laws of nature making it possible, or should there be a difference here, for just another explanation instead?

A Topology for an object could be used for also making a description of its actual properties, and here also possible to make a representation for such a thing, so if a bit unclear, I really stumbled on this one.

And something missing above for that of a single word, which went away, except for that of characteristics here as well, but not the missing part.

Concept

Conceptual model

If the Laws of nature should be making for the individual properties of given objects, as they could be observed, everything would next be more easy to explain as well.

You do not need the Force of gravity, for that of drawing just a circle or square.

Rather that the Force of gravity is making for the singularity being possible, and my best guess is that you do not need to be a Maths one here either.

Mathematician

Could you sometimes be making a thing dependent on another, or could you perhaps make it an interdependence instead?

Interdependence versus independence (of) - and apparently two different words, for those known Laws of nature.

I could end up slipping at times, for that of my wording, but except for running side by side at times, you could also make it even opportunities, or juxtapose.

Syllogism

The one page record for the album Seconds out", by Genesis, is having a reference to a flower, which is being commented by a member of the audience.

But next that Fractals could be making for both a tree and flower, except for not asking for the individual properties of each separate object.

Entity became perhaps the missed word, except that object-oriented programming could be meant for a software application, for that of a Class.

Checking, perhaps better with the magnifying glass, for that of the mentioned text search.

My last one for today.

If not any deceit, or delusion, for sometimes also fraud, perhaps I became victim of such a thing, except for the empty face which could be showing up, when everything went astray.

Being an astronomer, such a thing as money should not take away your day, except for adhering to a given standard for what you could expect, while not climbing any vertical wall either.

Therefore you should not be the one washing any dishes either, for only being round, or circular.

Apparently a new day, and here not checking in first.

But rather with Thermodynamics in the Wikipedia, for that of the boxes of the different Laws, as well as Potential.

Laws of thermodynamics

Potentials

Light should be the reason, or the result of the Weak nuclear Force, and perhaps also the above, should abide in the same way, but if light coming from stars should only be that of any emission, if not any photons either, what about any properties of a given object, when rather having a certain mode of operation instead?

The mentioned article could be almost an Axiom, for only its textual part or meaning, except for also a couple of Equations for its actual subject, namely that of Thermodynamics.

But next that the notion of time could be inferred, if not any concurred, from only the second Law here, for that of this, except for perhaps not written Laws here either.

Hopelessly in love, but I am really unable to do this on this little one, except for still that of gravity, as being a Fundamental Law of nature, also makes us coming up with Abstracts for which yet other things are supposed to work, including the shapes of figures, for that of their respective meanings.

More apparently needs to be added here as well.

Perhaps I rather should have this later, because here Gordon Lowe passing away, so for that my condolences.

Speaking of the weather, also both Thermodynamics and Viscocity as usual, except not any Nuclear fusion, as the reason for why stars are shining, and next at times throwing matter into space for only a nightly show.

If the fusion at the core becomes subdued or softened, by means of travelling through the interior, or layers of the star, the main decay particles transforms from their initial ones, whatever they could be, into photons for that of light, if not also just heat as well, and here perhaps not any microwave particles either.

Like also a state or condition for a given property of an object, again that the Force of gravity is supposed to be making for your day, except not any missing particle either, and also that we could make it "Knock on wood", for yet other things of interest.

While still that of a relationship, for not the other word either, we could be still left to believe that a couple of things could be explained, only because we could relate it with given Laws of nature.

But rather Weak interaction instead, and next opening up the box for Electroweak theory, for only a mentioning of the Higgs boson, except not wishing to dig into that subject, but only that it could be the Strong nuclear Force, which I have not yet visited today.

Is chewing a piece of gum anymore easy than a piece of meat, if not any bottle of soup either, how literally could you be able to make up the difference here, for just a discussion?

Einstein could make it a fourth dimension of space, by only a notion of time being added, except for myself still needing an umbrella or raincoat, when it starts raining down from the sky.