<HTML>Margaret:
I have followed your arguments, reasoning and logic as far as I can reasonably go.
You appear to focus on minutea, while GIANT evidence screams to the contrary.
Your own quote:
"In science, a fundamental rule holds that data must be duplicated by independent experiments. "
Speaks volumes about what Davidovits must do in order to prove his theory.
Simply, build us a 2.5 ton block of his geopolymer.
Then explain why they would build 2.3 million individual blocks, when they could have just packed and packed all day, and then allowed to dry overnight.... which would have been a MUCH more logical, rational, structurally sound, methodology.
Then, you MUST show CONCLUSIVE evidence that geopolymers were used. You have made a very carefully constructed comparison above:
"For purposes of further comparison, Davidovits analyzed several limestone samples from the Tura quarries, Egypt’s primary source of fine-grained limestone. Their chemical charts show that they are pure calcite, although some contain a trace of dolomite. The quarry samples tested do not have the unusual mineralogy of the Lauer sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid."
Congratulations. All you have succeeded in proving is that Davidovits tested the wrong quarry.
That is the ONLY conclusion from this experiment. Comparing Tura limestone to the bulk of the limestone found in the Great Pyramid is like analyzing the windshield of a car, and saying the chemical composition of the engine block must be the same... and then saying the entire automobile MUST be of some unnatural source because the steel mills in Detroit show no sign of glass production.
Margaret, your posts get SO long, so involved, they almost seem to be OVERWHELMING. Some people might confuse your length of expression and your level of detail to be evidence of correctness...
I find it to be a distraction technique, from the basic tennet that the geopolymer theory is unprovable, unproven, and quite possibly completely wrong. The more I read of your "arguments" the more I am convinced you are smoke-screening for the gigantic flaws in the theory. I'm sure this is not your intent, but it is the impression I get.
You know, there was a young man who debated religion with me on a regular basis. His argument for the existence of God was simple... because he looked at the world and couldn't understand how it all could have happened naturally, there MUST be a deity that produced it in a moment of divine Creation.
I feel you are pulling the same tactic here...
Because you don't know how to lift a 200 ton stone, no one could ever have done it.
Because you don't know how to carve diorite, no one could ever have done it.
Well, I don't know how to build a computer, but I'm pretty sure they still work... without magic or voodoo or deitic intervention.
Step back and look at the theory from square one, THE BIG SQUARE ONE, and I think you'll find this path is a dead end.
Just my opinion, Margaret. Nothing personal.
Yours,
Anthony</HTML>
