On 08/18/2026 12:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 19/08/2026 12:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 09:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/17/2026 05:04 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 17/08/2026 8:43 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Somebody like Maugin has something like the "acoustic wave
transducer",
an electronic circuit that makes for solving what would be digital >>>>>> problems more like analog problems.
Wouldn't that be the /analogue computers of yore/?
These days they call that a "D-Wave quantum simulator computer",
about that there are then also many models of computation that
were about planar circuits, with vias and all, in the "three-
dimensional
integrated circuit" or "3-D IC", that make some
what were fundamentally serial algorithms into general parallel.
Are you telling me quantum computers don't exist, and it's all /simu- >>>>> lated/ with regular off the shelf hardware?-a Is it all a scam?
The use of optical junctions and optical traces instead of electronic >>>>>> junctions and electronic traces, offers an entirely different model >>>>>> of propagation, basically for 1-to-many or many-to-1.
Huh, isn't that the same as the analogue computers of yore, only using >>>>> light instead of electric forces to do the calculations?-a How do they >>>>> move the gauges?
It's agreeable that a usual model of computation as a calculus
is limited to an abacus (if a rather large abacus): yet accounts
like the integral or infinitesimal analysis or Fourier-style analysis >>>>>> or about doubling-measures and quasi-invariant measure theory, these >>>>>> are "super-classical results" then though that a "computer algebra >>>>>> system" can be given the rules to work on them like perfect numbers >>>>>> in their symbolic forms.
Do you mean computer algebra systems like FriCAS are now sentient, and >>>>> therefore perfect?-a Or do I completely misunderstand your paragraph? >>>>>>
Then, figuring whether finite, if large, approximations are "close >>>>>> enough" that the differences would be lost, the "negligeable",
also they're formally "not quite", about what's called "weak
induction",
and that the definition of "strong induction" is
that some super-classical example that's somehow geometric and
infinitary already exists, ..., there may be many practical and
successful "polynomial-time approximations to NP-hard problems",
and in fact there's a great book with that title, yet otherwise
the "Turing-complete" as the same as "induction-complete" isn't so. >>>>>>
I thought induction was something we use in basic electricity.-a Some- >>>>> thing about making magnetic fields with electric currents?-a How
exactly
does that work?-a Do you know?
I have noticed that a lot of mathematicians don't care how the real
Mathematics is kind of like physics, the popular accounts:
rife with incompleteness, and inconsistencies, "independence",
that various successful and practical accounts choose to ignore
(and others just don't even know, nor, as long as they're "close
enough", care).
world works, and stick to the math.-a I currently believe Sabine Hoss- >>>>> enfelder (?) wrote a book about it, /Lost in Math/.-a Which is totally >>>>> different from the TV series /Lost in Space/ or /Lost in Time/.
Now that I think about it, do you think Sabine would be willing to
starr in her own adaption of /Lost in Math/, set in a scientific
fictional environment?-a How would the /Math/ even look like?-a Do we >>>>> have a clue what math looks like, if made into science fiction?
I'm cross posting to alt.fantasy, because I don't offhand know the
name of the science fiction group.
Hm. Well, all computers employ sorts of what are called "quantum
effects", though that's just "the logic the NAND gates" usually enough, >>>> it is though fair to say that most anything that's been called "quantum >>>> computing", with the idea of solving for a superposition of states all >>>> possible solutions at once, is "simulated quantum computing", yes.
So, all we need to protect ourselves against this /simulated quantum
computing/, is to have /simulated cryptography/?-a Does the N.S.A. know
about it?
The usual idea is that it results one solution then that's alike
accounts of "simulated annealing", "simulated quantum annealing",
and so on, what are numerical methods and approximations with their
error terms.
Then, "induction" was about "inductive inference", so it's in accounts >>>> of inference, that there are basically "inductive inference" and
"deductive inference", and some will make for "abductive inference"
though here that's under "deductive inference" that induction is
about the point and deduction is about the space, then about that
"weak induction" is distinguished from "strong induction" that
"strong induction" has an "a priori" or "super-classical" reason
after deduction/abduction that gives a place for a limit to reach.
So, we simply approximate the limit of of the induction with numerical
calculations?-a Have you considered any of the methods in the book /MATH
Toolkit for REAL-TIME Programming/ by Crenshaw for this task?
I know the trolls in comp.lang.c don't believe I can type in these
titles, but the book is on my shelf, and I can just look at it, and
the name of the author.-a They really have a problem with the distinction
between fantasy and reality.-a Something we don't do here in alt.fantasy.
Words like "structural realists", vis-a-vis, "nominalist
fictionalists",
have that most mathematicaians at least once
are "structural realists" and "mathematical platonists", and
at least once (or, on demand) "nominalist fictionalists" or
"logicist positivists", then that the only way to be a "strong
mathematical platonist" or "strong logicist positivist" is to
be both all the time.
Do you think mathematicians ever write better structural platonic
fiction than Lewis Carrol, who is mostly famous for writing Alice in
Wonderland, but was also a great mathematician?
A sort of paleo-classical post-modern study of the account
of reason's account over the ages and for today has both
the ideological tradition and the analytical tradition with
which to contend, about a teleology and an ontology, for a
theory that results that it's Truth's theory.
Have you considered cambrian-pre-classical avant-modern study of
fossils?-a I believe the /cambrian explosion/ is a misnomer, and a
new analytical tradition of reintrepreting the fossils is needed
to discover the truth.
The Sufis and since antiquity have an account of "The Seeker",Do these /Sufis/ guys also believe the Cambrian era needs re evaluation?
the "Truth-Seeker".
Do they even care that modern "archaeologists" may be greatly misunder-
standing the life forms of our own planetary pre-extinction-event bio-
logy?-a By that I mean before all five usual /extinction level events/.
Thank you, and happy marine biology!
In high school I wrote a paper on Carroll (or Dodgson) about
"The Raven and the Writing Desk", the old "why is the raven
like the writing desk?", and the answer is it's not, except
that all questions have all answers (even the non-sensical).
Dodgson wasn't a particularly "great" mathematician, yet
though, for example, he entertained notions of the non-Archimedean
and infinitesimals, yet, many people also don't know that
Peano of integer fame also constructs infinitesimals a century
before John Conway and the like the sur-real numbers, where
the Robinson's hyper-real numbers really don't say much at all,
then there were Veronese and Stolz centuries after Cavalieri
and indivisibles, then there's Bishop and Cheng in the 20'th
century with "partially ordered ring with rather restricted
transfer principle", and things like Vicker's alternative topologies,
Bell's "smooth" numbers (or, rather, in the language of continuous
functions, which don't say much about continuous domains), Leibniz
with the differential and Newton's fluxions, Maclaurin the great formalization of standard analysis presaging Cauchy and Weierstrass,
about duBois-Reymond the long-line and all its crossing of the
linear continuum, Cantor didn't say much about infinitesimals
except they made him sick, Eudoxus the usual account of the
rational field an extension to completion more or less is the
same as Cauchy, that Dedekind later broke, then that Democritus
has atomism since antiquity, and Grosseteste with aliquot-parts
after Duns Scotus and "infinity is in", has that Xenocrates had
standard infinitesimals before Aristotle even got published.
Then Dodgson was a mathematician on his own account.
The greater risk to the security of cryptography is that
the usual account of modular forms and things like "Fermat's
Last Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles" are bull-shit,
since there are accounts of real numbers and laws of large
numbers, more than the usual law of large numbers the law
of small numbers, making what are called "Giant Monsters of
Mathematical Independence" after Erdos who provides plentiful
contradictions in open conjectures in number theory, that
relatively simple under-explored mathematics simply fill
out the corners in many cases of "weak seeds or predictable salts"
and the like, that it wasn't really secure to begin, then
that "AI" from its looking around for a meal-ticket finds
actually the weaknesses of modern standard cryptographic algorithms,
their backdoors that clever mathematicians, maybe too clever,
thought in their superiority nobody else would ever figure out.
Pride goeth before the fall, ....
A usual Atlantean Bronze Age hypothesis has much evidence
from the similarities of the scripts of the meso-American
and medi-Terranean on basically either side of the Atlas
mountains the Atlantic.
The name "America" itself may even simply predate "Amerigo Vespucci".
On 19/08/2026 4:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 12:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 19/08/2026 12:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 09:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/17/2026 05:04 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 17/08/2026 8:43 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Somebody like Maugin has something like the "acoustic wave
transducer",
an electronic circuit that makes for solving what would be digital >>>>>>> problems more like analog problems.
Wouldn't that be the /analogue computers of yore/?
These days they call that a "D-Wave quantum simulator computer", >>>>>>> about that there are then also many models of computation that
were about planar circuits, with vias and all, in the "three-
dimensional
integrated circuit" or "3-D IC", that make some
what were fundamentally serial algorithms into general parallel.
Are you telling me quantum computers don't exist, and it's all /simu- >>>>>> lated/ with regular off the shelf hardware? Is it all a scam?
The use of optical junctions and optical traces instead of
electronic
junctions and electronic traces, offers an entirely different model >>>>>>> of propagation, basically for 1-to-many or many-to-1.
Huh, isn't that the same as the analogue computers of yore, only
using
light instead of electric forces to do the calculations? How do they >>>>>> move the gauges?
It's agreeable that a usual model of computation as a calculus
is limited to an abacus (if a rather large abacus): yet accounts >>>>>>> like the integral or infinitesimal analysis or Fourier-style
analysis
or about doubling-measures and quasi-invariant measure theory, these >>>>>>> are "super-classical results" then though that a "computer algebra >>>>>>> system" can be given the rules to work on them like perfect numbers >>>>>>> in their symbolic forms.
Do you mean computer algebra systems like FriCAS are now sentient, >>>>>> and
therefore perfect? Or do I completely misunderstand your paragraph? >>>>>>>
Then, figuring whether finite, if large, approximations are "close >>>>>>> enough" that the differences would be lost, the "negligeable",
also they're formally "not quite", about what's called "weak
induction",
and that the definition of "strong induction" is
that some super-classical example that's somehow geometric and
infinitary already exists, ..., there may be many practical and
successful "polynomial-time approximations to NP-hard problems", >>>>>>> and in fact there's a great book with that title, yet otherwise
the "Turing-complete" as the same as "induction-complete" isn't so. >>>>>>>
I thought induction was something we use in basic electricity. Some- >>>>>> thing about making magnetic fields with electric currents? How
exactly
does that work? Do you know?
I have noticed that a lot of mathematicians don't care how the real >>>>>> world works, and stick to the math. I currently believe Sabine Hoss- >>>>>> enfelder (?) wrote a book about it, /Lost in Math/. Which is totally >>>>>> different from the TV series /Lost in Space/ or /Lost in Time/.
Mathematics is kind of like physics, the popular accounts:
rife with incompleteness, and inconsistencies, "independence",
that various successful and practical accounts choose to ignore
(and others just don't even know, nor, as long as they're "close >>>>>>> enough", care).
Now that I think about it, do you think Sabine would be willing to >>>>>> starr in her own adaption of /Lost in Math/, set in a scientific
fictional environment? How would the /Math/ even look like? Do we >>>>>> have a clue what math looks like, if made into science fiction?
I'm cross posting to alt.fantasy, because I don't offhand know the >>>>>> name of the science fiction group.
Hm. Well, all computers employ sorts of what are called "quantum
effects", though that's just "the logic the NAND gates" usually
enough,
it is though fair to say that most anything that's been called
"quantum
computing", with the idea of solving for a superposition of states all >>>>> possible solutions at once, is "simulated quantum computing", yes.
So, all we need to protect ourselves against this /simulated quantum
computing/, is to have /simulated cryptography/? Does the N.S.A. know
about it?
The usual idea is that it results one solution then that's alike
accounts of "simulated annealing", "simulated quantum annealing",
and so on, what are numerical methods and approximations with their
error terms.
Then, "induction" was about "inductive inference", so it's in accounts >>>>> of inference, that there are basically "inductive inference" and
"deductive inference", and some will make for "abductive inference"
though here that's under "deductive inference" that induction is
about the point and deduction is about the space, then about that
"weak induction" is distinguished from "strong induction" that
"strong induction" has an "a priori" or "super-classical" reason
after deduction/abduction that gives a place for a limit to reach.
So, we simply approximate the limit of of the induction with numerical
calculations? Have you considered any of the methods in the book /MATH
Toolkit for REAL-TIME Programming/ by Crenshaw for this task?
I know the trolls in comp.lang.c don't believe I can type in these
titles, but the book is on my shelf, and I can just look at it, and
the name of the author. They really have a problem with the distinction >>> between fantasy and reality. Something we don't do here in alt.fantasy. >>>
Words like "structural realists", vis-a-vis, "nominalist
fictionalists",
have that most mathematicaians at least once
are "structural realists" and "mathematical platonists", and
at least once (or, on demand) "nominalist fictionalists" or
"logicist positivists", then that the only way to be a "strong
mathematical platonist" or "strong logicist positivist" is to
be both all the time.
Do you think mathematicians ever write better structural platonic
fiction than Lewis Carrol, who is mostly famous for writing Alice in
Wonderland, but was also a great mathematician?
A sort of paleo-classical post-modern study of the account
of reason's account over the ages and for today has both
the ideological tradition and the analytical tradition with
which to contend, about a teleology and an ontology, for a
theory that results that it's Truth's theory.
Have you considered cambrian-pre-classical avant-modern study of
fossils? I believe the /cambrian explosion/ is a misnomer, and a
new analytical tradition of reintrepreting the fossils is needed
to discover the truth.
The Sufis and since antiquity have an account of "The Seeker",Do these /Sufis/ guys also believe the Cambrian era needs re evaluation? >>>
the "Truth-Seeker".
Do they even care that modern "archaeologists" may be greatly misunder-
standing the life forms of our own planetary pre-extinction-event bio-
logy? By that I mean before all five usual /extinction level events/.
Thank you, and happy marine biology!
In high school I wrote a paper on Carroll (or Dodgson) about
"The Raven and the Writing Desk", the old "why is the raven
like the writing desk?", and the answer is it's not, except
that all questions have all answers (even the non-sensical).
Dodgson wasn't a particularly "great" mathematician, yet
though, for example, he entertained notions of the non-Archimedean
and infinitesimals, yet, many people also don't know that
Peano of integer fame also constructs infinitesimals a century
before John Conway and the like the sur-real numbers, where
the Robinson's hyper-real numbers really don't say much at all,
then there were Veronese and Stolz centuries after Cavalieri
and indivisibles, then there's Bishop and Cheng in the 20'th
century with "partially ordered ring with rather restricted
transfer principle", and things like Vicker's alternative topologies,
Bell's "smooth" numbers (or, rather, in the language of continuous
functions, which don't say much about continuous domains), Leibniz
with the differential and Newton's fluxions, Maclaurin the great
formalization of standard analysis presaging Cauchy and Weierstrass,
about duBois-Reymond the long-line and all its crossing of the
linear continuum, Cantor didn't say much about infinitesimals
except they made him sick, Eudoxus the usual account of the
rational field an extension to completion more or less is the
same as Cauchy, that Dedekind later broke, then that Democritus
has atomism since antiquity, and Grosseteste with aliquot-parts
after Duns Scotus and "infinity is in", has that Xenocrates had
standard infinitesimals before Aristotle even got published.
Then Dodgson was a mathematician on his own account.
I'm coming at this from here and there, having only passing knowledge of calculus, and undergraduate linear algebra. And then having read the
scraps of quotations we have of the earliest Greek philosophers we know.
Wasn't Xenocrates just repeating the wisdom and knowledge of Thales of Miletus?
In any case, it'll be a while until I start adding the history of the mathematics to my ever growing pile of reading material, having all
kinds of things, including stuff to implement my own cryptographic pri- mitives.
The greater risk to the security of cryptography is that
the usual account of modular forms and things like "Fermat's
Last Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles" are bull-shit,
since there are accounts of real numbers and laws of large
numbers, more than the usual law of large numbers the law
of small numbers, making what are called "Giant Monsters of
Mathematical Independence" after Erdos who provides plentiful
contradictions in open conjectures in number theory, that
relatively simple under-explored mathematics simply fill
out the corners in many cases of "weak seeds or predictable salts"
and the like, that it wasn't really secure to begin, then
that "AI" from its looking around for a meal-ticket finds
actually the weaknesses of modern standard cryptographic algorithms,
their backdoors that clever mathematicians, maybe too clever,
thought in their superiority nobody else would ever figure out.
Well, on weak salts, I try to just make do with Fortuna, and hope for
the best.
Pride goeth before the fall, ....
Indeed, but this is known in cryptographic circles. They're well aware
that at any time a new mathematician -- or should I say, mathemagickian
-- can invent something that invalidates all of prior cryptography.
Still, we do what we can with the available knowledge, and code our cry- ptography in C despite all the howling about Rust and memory safety.
I'm now adding sci.crypt to the discussion.
A usual Atlantean Bronze Age hypothesis has much evidence
from the similarities of the scripts of the meso-American
and medi-Terranean on basically either side of the Atlas
mountains the Atlantic.
I'm not sure I believe in an /Atlantian Bronze Age/, as in, that
/Atlantis/ was -- or was in -- America, and that what we now call /The Atlantic Ocean/ but back then was the /Ethiopian Ocean/ was navigable
during what we call the /Bronze Age/.
On the scripts, have you read Bernal's /Cadmean Letters/? It's a fashi- nating book.
I think it's much more likely that the Atlantis we know and love was an empire known before the last ice age. I'm also unsure about when it was supposed to have sunk. If I remember my Randall Carlsson correctly,
there is doubt and interpretation on exactly how long ago it was supp-
osed to have happened, and I'm basing my own theories on it was longer
ago than /currently accepted/ among the hystorians who don't even belie-
ve it existed in the first place.
So now I'm adding alt.magick, and alt.magic.history to the discussion.
I cannot stress this enough, but I do not believe in ancient aliens, nor little green men. So I'm not adding any science fiction groups to this discussion!
If you have any input on when exactly Atlantis is supposed to have sunk,
I'd greatly like to hear it.
The name "America" itself may even simply predate "Amerigo Vespucci".
That sort of interesting. Do you have a better source than yourself on
it? I have no idea what bronze age people would have called America, if
they even knew about it as anything but /the unknown west/.
On 08/18/2026 02:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:[]
On 19/08/2026 4:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 12:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 19/08/2026 12:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 09:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/17/2026 05:04 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 17/08/2026 8:43 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
A usual Atlantean Bronze Age hypothesis has much evidence
from the similarities of the scripts of the meso-American
and medi-Terranean on basically either side of the Atlas
mountains the Atlantic.
I'm not sure I believe in an /Atlantian Bronze Age/, as in, that
/Atlantis/ was -- or was in -- America, and that what we now call /The Atlantic Ocean/ but back then was the /Ethiopian Ocean/ was navigable during what we call the /Bronze Age/.
That sort of interesting. Do you have a better source than yourself on
it? I have no idea what bronze age people would have called America, if they even knew about it as anything but /the unknown west/.
The Atlantean theory of Bronze-Age transmigration and world-wide
peopling circa 12000 BCE and up to the Noachic or ante-Deluvian, was thoroughly debunked and replaced with the "Alaskan lang bridge" concept
since it entirely infuriated those with the Hamite/Shemite/Japhethite
view of racial discrimination and the impossibility of sea-faring
and ocean-faring of primitive peoples, vis-a-vis the Kon-Tiki
or the accounts of Bronze Age bronze mines all up the Missouri
and that the seat of the civilization was from Peru, and that
the scripts besides the architecture of pyramids on both sides
of the Atlantic, have that it does take a bit of squinting to
consider the ancient Mayan and Phoenician scripts side-by-side,
which are about the same count and assigned to the same phonemes,
and have the same ideogram. Then, there's a book from about
120 years ago with much the considered evidence for this sort
of account, which most would discard, though is quite readable
and archaeologically principled.
There are of course a variety of considered influences of humanity's
origins, basically from the heart, the south, and the north.
That said homo sapiens has many possible mutations.
About Amerigo Vespucci the famed cartographer, has that there
were already maps predating Vespucci's several hundred years,
and, he might've simply inherited a copy.
broOn Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:06:50 -0700
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/18/2026 02:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:[]
On 19/08/2026 4:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 12:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 19/08/2026 12:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 09:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/17/2026 05:04 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 17/08/2026 8:43 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[]A usual Atlantean Bronze Age hypothesis has much evidence
from the similarities of the scripts of the meso-American
and medi-Terranean on basically either side of the Atlas
mountains the Atlantic.
I'm not sure I believe in an /Atlantian Bronze Age/, as in, that
/Atlantis/ was -- or was in -- America, and that what we now call /The
Atlantic Ocean/ but back then was the /Ethiopian Ocean/ was navigable
during what we call the /Bronze Age/.
[]
That sort of interesting. Do you have a better source than yourself on
it? I have no idea what bronze age people would have called America, if >>> they even knew about it as anything but /the unknown west/.
The Atlantean theory of Bronze-Age transmigration and world-wide
peopling circa 12000 BCE and up to the Noachic or ante-Deluvian, was
thoroughly debunked and replaced with the "Alaskan lang bridge" concept
since it entirely infuriated those with the Hamite/Shemite/Japhethite
view of racial discrimination and the impossibility of sea-faring
and ocean-faring of primitive peoples, vis-a-vis the Kon-Tiki
or the accounts of Bronze Age bronze mines all up the Missouri
. As of 1999, "no one has found evidence that points to the use of
melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric eastern North America."[3] (prC>136)
and that the seat of the civilization was from Peru, and that
the scripts besides the architecture of pyramids on both sides
of the Atlantic, have that it does take a bit of squinting to
consider the ancient Mayan and Phoenician scripts side-by-side,
which are about the same count and assigned to the same phonemes,
and have the same ideogram. Then, there's a book from about
120 years ago with much the considered evidence for this sort
of account, which most would discard, though is quite readable
and archaeologically principled.
Now, I forgot if I mentioned this before, but Graham Hancock has
There are of course a variety of considered influences of humanity's
origins, basically from the heart, the south, and the north.
That said homo sapiens has many possible mutations.
About Amerigo Vespucci the famed cartographer, has that there
were already maps predating Vespucci's several hundred years,
and, he might've simply inherited a copy.
On 19/08/2026 11:55 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
broOn Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:06:50 -0700
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/18/2026 02:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:[]
On 19/08/2026 4:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 12:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 19/08/2026 12:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2026 09:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/17/2026 05:04 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 17/08/2026 8:43 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[]A usual Atlantean Bronze Age hypothesis has much evidence
from the similarities of the scripts of the meso-American
and medi-Terranean on basically either side of the Atlas
mountains the Atlantic.
I'm not sure I believe in an /Atlantian Bronze Age/, as in, that
/Atlantis/ was -- or was in -- America, and that what we now call /The >>>> Atlantic Ocean/ but back then was the /Ethiopian Ocean/ was navigable
during what we call the /Bronze Age/.
[]
That sort of interesting. Do you have a better source than yourself on >>>> it? I have no idea what bronze age people would have called
America, if
they even knew about it as anything but /the unknown west/.
The Atlantean theory of Bronze-Age transmigration and world-wide
peopling circa 12000 BCE and up to the Noachic or ante-Deluvian, was
thoroughly debunked and replaced with the "Alaskan lang bridge" concept
since it entirely infuriated those with the Hamite/Shemite/Japhethite
view of racial discrimination and the impossibility of sea-faring
and ocean-faring of primitive peoples, vis-a-vis the Kon-Tiki
or the accounts of Bronze Age bronze mines all up the Missouri
. As of 1999, "no one has found evidence that points to the use of
melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric eastern North America."[3]
(prC>136)
I'm not sure that's relevant. Looking at a map of ocean currents, they
land in meso-america. I believe /meso-america/ is the term we use to
refer to the now /Gulf of Trump/, or was it /Gulf of America/, or /Gulf
of Mexico/? I'm getting confused due to the constant name changes.
So, if indeed any ships arriving from the shore of northern africa, or southern europe -- this is the same place -- land in the americas,
wouldn't they have to land in meso-america, and the gulf?
And on that subject, how was the melting, smelting, and general use of
metals in meso-america before Columbus?
and that the seat of the civilization was from Peru, and that
the scripts besides the architecture of pyramids on both sides
of the Atlantic, have that it does take a bit of squinting to
consider the ancient Mayan and Phoenician scripts side-by-side,
which are about the same count and assigned to the same phonemes,
and have the same ideogram. Then, there's a book from about
120 years ago with much the considered evidence for this sort
of account, which most would discard, though is quite readable
and archaeologically principled.
Hmm, which book is that? There were a /lot/ of books published ca. 120
years ago, and I'm not inclined to read them all in the near future!
Now, I forgot if I mentioned this before, but Graham Hancock has
There are of course a variety of considered influences of humanity's
origins, basically from the heart, the south, and the north.
That said homo sapiens has many possible mutations.
About Amerigo Vespucci the famed cartographer, has that there
were already maps predating Vespucci's several hundred years,
and, he might've simply inherited a copy.
written interesting theories on this subject, and has also starred
his own T.V. show, for those who can't be bothered to read.
Happy sailing across the /atlantic ocean/!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:26:35 |
| Calls: | 1,197 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 296,883 |