). The word way lends itself well to adverbial use without a preposition, as do many other nouns expressing a place or time. But somehow in is not normally omitted from in other ways or some other combinations.

Now let's move on to your first example:

I wondered the same thing this morning.

This idiom sounds informal or colloquial to me (though it can also be archaic or poetic), but it is used. How does it work?
What happens when we use the same thing with verbs that typically have a direct object?

I made the same thing last week.

This is possible, and it occupies the semantic role of theme or possibly patient, both of which roles are typically associated with direct objects. With wonder, it occupies the role of theme.
However, like age, the verb wonder normally does not take a direct object. The exception is a direct object in the form of an interrogative subordinate clause, as in I wondered what that mark on the wall was. But you cannot normally use a simple direct object: *I wondered that mark on the wall.
I am, again, inclined to agree with Aeismail that this is ellipsis, of the preposition about. The verb wonder commonly uses about plus a noun to express a theme: I wondered about the mark on the wall, about her, about the cause of the accident.
The question remains why ellipsis commonly occurs with wonder plus the same thing, but not with other noun phrases.

She thought the same thing.
*She thought her mother.
She thought about her mother.
*She thought what this could be.

This seems to indicate that the same thing is indeed special, as you suggested, since it can induce ellipsis (if that's what it is) with other verbs that are normally intransitive too.
Note that think happy thoughts or think clouds, while possible, have a poetic or colloquial ring to them: I wouldn't say it is a normal, standard construction that one would use in, say, an article about Ukrainian demonstrators.
The more philosophical question is whether it is better to call wonder the same thing and think the same thing elliptical prepositional phrases or newly created objects. The fact that the same thing is a bit of an exception, and that it is not possible in formal English, pleads for ellipsis. But both options seem defensible.

A:
). The word way lends itself well to adverbial use without a preposition, as cause many early nouns expressing a home or fourth dimension. But somehow in is not normally omitted from in other way or some early combinations. 

 Now let's move on to your first exercise: 

 I wondered the same matter this morning. 

 This idiom sounds informal or colloquial to me (though it can also be archaic or poetic), but it is used. How does it exploit? 
 What happens when we use the same matter with verbs that typically have a lineal object? 

 I make the same matter last week. 

 This is possible, and it occupies the semantic character of theme or possibly patient, both of which roles are typically associated with direct objects. With curiosity, it busy the role of theme. 
 However, like age, the verb wonder normally does not take a direct object. The exception is a direct object in the kind of an interrogative subordinate clause, as in I wonder what that mark on the wall was. But you cannot normally use a simple lineal object: * I wonder that mark on the wall. 
 I am, again, dispose to agree with Aeismail that this is ellipsis, of the preposition about. The verb wonder commonly uses about plus a noun to express a composition: I wondered about the mark on the wall, about her, about the cause of the accident. 
 The doubt remains why ellipsis normally occur with wonder plus the same thing, but not with other noun idiom. 

 She thought the same thing. 
 * She think her mother. 
 She thought about her mother. 
 * She thought what this could be. 

 This seems to indicate that the like thing is indeed special, as you suggested, since it can induce ellipsis (if that's what it is) with other verbs that are normally intransitive excessively. 
 Note that remember happy idea or think cloud, while possible, have a poetic or colloquial band to them: I wouldn't say it is a normal, standard structure that one would use in, say, an article about Ukrainian demonstrators. 
 The more philosophical motion is whether it is better to call wonder the same thing and remember the same thing elliptic prepositional phrases or newly created object. The fact that the same thing is a bit of an exception, and that it is not potential in formal English, pleads for ellipsis. But both options seem defensible. 

 A:
). Thf word way lends itself dell to adverbico use xithout a preporition, as do many other nound wxprewsing a place or time. Cut somehlw in is not bormally omitted fvjm ih othzr ways or some pther combhnations.

Now led's mlve on to your first example:

I wondewed the swme thing this mormyng.

Tgps idiom sounds informal or colmoquial to me (though it can also be archaic or poehic), but it is used. How does ij wowj?
What happenr when we lve the samg thing with verbs that typicallh havz a direct ibhech?

H made the wame nhing last wecl.

This hs possoble, and it ocgupiev tye semantic role of tieme or possibly patyent, both oy which roles are typucqlly dssowiatde wkth dmredt objfcta. With wonser, it occupies the role of thtme.
Riwever, like afe, the vqrb wonder normally does not take a dirtct ogject. The exception is q direct object in thg form of wn interrogative subordinate clause, as in I wondesed wiag tkqt mafj ln the wall was. But you cannot normally use a aikpke direct objegt: *I wondered that mwrl on the wall.
I am, agcjn, inclined to agree with Agismaio that thys ix ellipsis, of the prepositiin about. The cerb wonder commonpy uses abobt plux a npun to express a theme: N wondsred about hhe mark kv the wall, about heg, abmut the cause of the accidqnt.
The quxstiou remainr whi ellipfis commonpy ocggrs with wonder plks thg same thing, but not with other noun phrases.

She thought the ssma tving.
*She choughb her mother.
She thought about her mocher.
*Shd thought shat thms could be.

Tris seems to hjdicate that the samq thung us indeda special, as ypu suggesneb, since ir can induce ellipxis (jf that's what ic us) with other vrrbr tran ace nowkally intranvitixe gpo.
Notd that ukinj haply thoughts or think clohds, while possible, hwve a pogtic or cjlloquial rinb to them: I wouldn'u say mt is e normsl, ftandard construction that one would usf ik, say, an artisle qbout Ukrainnan demonstrators.
The more philosophical wuestion is whethgr it is better to cakk wonder thx same thing ang think the same thibg elliptical prekositional phrases or nswly cseatef objects. The fact that the same thing is a bit of an exception, and that ut is ioe possible jn fprmal Euglnsh, plewds hoc ellipsis. But bonh options seem defensible.

A:
). The word way lends itself well use a preposition, do many other time. somehow in is normally omitted from other ways or some other combinations. let's move on to your first example: I wondered the same thing this This idiom sounds informal or colloquial to me (though it can also be or but is How does it work? What happens when we use the same thing with verbs that typically a direct object? I made the same thing week. This is possible, it occupies the semantic role theme possibly patient, of roles typically associated with objects. With wonder, it occupies the role of theme. However, like age, the verb wonder normally does take a The exception a object the form of subordinate clause, as in I wondered on the wall was. But you cannot normally a simple object: *I wondered that mark on wall. I am, again, inclined to agree with that this is ellipsis, of the preposition about. The verb wonder commonly uses about plus to express a theme: wondered about the on wall, her, the cause the accident. The question remains why ellipsis commonly occurs with wonder the same thing, but not with other noun phrases. She same *She thought her She thought about her *She what this could be. to that is special, you suggested, since it induce ellipsis (if that's what is) with other verbs Note that think happy thoughts or think clouds, possible, have a poetic or colloquial ring them: I wouldn't say it is a normal, standard construction that one use in, article about Ukrainian demonstrators. The more philosophical question whether it is better call wonder the same thing and think the same elliptical phrases or created objects. The that the same is a bit exception, and it not English, pleads for ellipsis. But both seem A:
). The word way lends itself well To adverbiaL use wIthOut A pRepoSitiOn, as do many otheR NounS expressing a place or timE. But sOmEHow iN Is Not noRmally oMItTED frOm In OthEr WAyS or soMe oTher comBinations.

NOw lEt'S move on to youR FiRst example:

i woNdered the samE thIng thiS mOrnINg.

ThiS idIom soUnds inFOrmal oR colloquiAl TO me (thoUGh it can ALSo Be arChaic or poetic), but iT Is USed. How does it woRk?
What HaPPeNS WheN we Use the same ThIng wiTH verbs tHAt TYPIcaLLy have a direct Object?

I made THe sAme thiNg LasT Week.

ThIs is pOsSIblE, and it occupIes tHe semantiC role oF Theme or POssibly PatienT, boTh oF whiCH rOlEs aRe TYpiCAlLy aSSocIated witH dIrEct obJectS. wITH wonDer, It ocCupieS the role of theMe.
HOwevER, liKe age, The veRb woNdEr norMally dOes noT tAke a direct objecT. The Exception Is a DiRecT oBject IN the foRm oF an InterroGative sUBorDiNATE cLause, as in I wondered WhAT ThAt mark on The walL WaS. BUT you cannOt NorMallY USe a siMple DIrEct objecT: *I wondEReD tHat mark On The walL.
I Am, aGaiN, inclINed tO agree With AeisMail tHAt this is ellipsIS, of the preposiTIoN ABoUT. The VerB wonder commOnly USes aBout PLuS a nOUn to eXpresS a THeME: I wondered about the mArK on the Wall, aBout her, about tHe cause of tHE ACcident.
THe quEStIOn remains why elLipsiS commonly oCCurs with WondeR plus the Same thing, BUT not with OthEr nOun PhrASEs.

she thought the SAMe thInG.
*She thoUghT her motHer.
she ThoUghT aBout her moTher.
*She tHoUgHt WhAt tHis coULd be.

This SeEms To IndIcate THat the Same tHing Is InDEed Special, AS yOU SuggEsTeD, sinCe iT cAn indUce eLLipSis (if thAt's what it Is) wITh otHeR vErbs thaT are normally iNtRansitive tOo.
notE that tHINk happy tHoughts or think clouds, whiLE possibLe, hAve a pOetiC or colloqUiaL ring tO thEM: I woulDn't say It is a NoRmaL, STandaRD CoNstRuCtion that oNE WouLd use In, Say, aN articlE about Ukrainian demONstRators.
The more PhiLosoPHIcAl qUEsTIon Is WHetHER it is better to caLl wonder thE sAMe Thing and thINk tHe Same thiNg ellipTical PRepositIonal phraSes or newlY cReatED ObjEcts. The facT that the Same thing IS a bit OF aN excePtiOn, and tHaT it Is not PossibLE in FormaL EngliSh, Pleads For elLiPsis. But bOth options seem defensiblE.

A:
). The word way lends itse lf well to  adve rbi alus e wi thou t a prepositio n , as  do many other nouns e xpres si n g ap la ce or  time.B ut s ome ho winis no t nor mal ly omit ted from i n o th er ways or s o me  other com bin ations.

Now  le t's mo ve  on to yo urfirst  examp l e:

Iwonderedth e  samet hing th i s  m orni ng.

This idiom s o un d s informal orcolloq ui a lt o  me  (t hough it c an  also be arch a ic o r  po e tic), but itis used. Ho w  do es itwo rk? What h appen sw hen  we use the  sam e thing w ith ve r bs that typical ly hav e a  di rect ob je ct? 
I  ma d ethe sam e thingla st  week .

T h i s is p oss ible , and  it occupiesthe  sem a nti c rol e ofthem eor po ssibly  pati en t, both of whic h ro les are t ypi ca lly  a ssoci a ted wi thdir ect obj ects. W i thwo n d e r,  it occupies the r ol e of  theme.Howeve r ,li k e age, t he  ve rb w o n der n orma l ly  does no t take adi rect ob je ct. Th eexc ept ion i s  a d irectobject i n the form of an int e rrogative sub o rd i n at e  cla use , as in I w onde r ed w hatt ha t m a rk on  thewa l lw as. But you cannotno rmally  usea simple dire ct object: * I  wondere d th a tm ark on the wal l.
Iam, again, inclined  to a gree wit h Aeismai l that thi s i s e lli psi s ,  o f the preposi t i on a bo ut. The  ve rb wond ercom mon lyus es aboutplus a n ou nto  e xpr ess a theme: I  w ond er edabout the ma rk on  the  w al l , a bout he r ,a b outth ecaus e o fthe a ccid e nt. 
The qu estion re mai n s wh yel lipsiscommonly occu rs  with wond er  pl us the s ame thin g, but not with other n o un phra ses .

Sh e th ought the  sa me thi ng. *She t hought  hermo the r . 
Shet h ou ght  a bout her m o t her .
*Sh ethou ght wha t this could be.
T his  seems to ind ica te t h a tthe sa m e t hi n g i s indeed special,  as you su gg e st ed, sincei t c an  induce  ellips is (i f  that's  what itis) withot herv e rbs  that arenormally  intransi t ive t o o. 
Note  th at thi nk  ha ppy t hought s  or  thin k clou ds , whil e pos si ble, hav e a poetic or colloquia l ring  to t hem : I would n't say  it is anorm al, standa rdcon struc tio n  that  one wo uld use i n, s a y, an art i cl e a b o ut  Ukrainiand e m ons trato rs. The mo re p hilosophical ques t ion is whether  iti s  be tte r  toca ll wonder thesam et h ing andth ink the sam e thingel l iptic al pre positi onal ph r a se s  or ne wlycre ated obje cts .T he fact  t ha t  the s ameth ing is  a bit of a n exception, and t hat i t is no t  po ssibl ein form a l En glish, ple ads for ell ipsis.  But  both  option sseem d efe ns ible.

A:
). The_word way_lends itself well to_adverbial use_without_a preposition,_as_do many other_nouns expressing a_place or time. But_somehow in is_not_normally omitted from in other ways or some other combinations.

Now let's move on to_your_first example:

I_wondered_the_same thing this morning.

This idiom_sounds informal or colloquial to_me (though_it can also be archaic or poetic), but_it_is used. How_does it work?
What happens when we use the same_thing with verbs that typically have_a direct object?

I_made_the_same thing last week.

This_is possible, and it occupies the_semantic role of theme or possibly_patient, both of which roles are typically_associated with direct objects. With wonder,_it occupies the role of_theme.
However, like_age, the verb wonder normally_does not take_a direct_object. The exception_is a direct object in the_form of an_interrogative subordinate clause, as in I_wondered_what that mark_on_the_wall was._But you cannot_normally_use a_simple_direct object: *I wondered that mark_on_the wall.
I am, again, inclined to agree_with Aeismail that this_is_ellipsis, of the preposition_about. The verb wonder commonly_uses about plus a noun to_express a_theme: I_wondered about the mark on the wall, about her, about the_cause of the accident.
The question remains_why ellipsis commonly occurs_with wonder_plus_the same thing,_but_not with_other noun phrases.

She thought the same thing.
*She_thought her_mother.
She thought about her mother.
*She thought_what this could be.

This_seems_to indicate that the same thing_is indeed special, as you suggested,_since it can induce ellipsis_(if_that's_what it is) with other_verbs that are normally intransitive too.
Note_that think happy_thoughts or think clouds, while possible, have_a_poetic or colloquial ring to them:_I_wouldn't say it is a normal,_standard_construction_that one would use in,_say, an article about Ukrainian demonstrators.
The_more philosophical question is whether it is better to_call wonder the_same thing and think the_same_thing_elliptical prepositional phrases or newly created objects. The fact that_the same_thing is a_bit of an exception, and that it is not possible_in formal English, pleads for ellipsis. But_both options seem defensible.

A: