<HTML>Anthony, I'll accept your apology. And I'll offer you mine if I've hurt your feelings or somehow brought your machine struggle too close for comfort.
I'm not going to answer all of your post to which this responds because I don't see the need.
But I'll say this. If you've discovered a principle you should not worry about what anybody thinks or about archaeology -- because new ideas are not welcome when it comes to the GP or mainstream archaeology in general. Look at the facts Anthony -- the Mesopotamian basalt was examined and determined to be fake rock. No fuss no muss. Why was this fake rock so easily accepted without a fight? It's not controversial. It's not GP rock and the opinion came from within the mainstream archaeological community.
Compare -- the geopolymerists have bent over backwards giving supporting evidence (summary below) and brought more opinions and data to bear on the pyramid stone than will ever be focused on the fake basalt in Iraq. But when it comes to the GP new theories outside of the orthodox are not welcome -- you'll see this if you go on with your machine theory but I don't want to discourage you if you want to go down this path. I don't think you can win and I say that with honesty and not to be mean.
Getting back to the geopolymer theory, it explains too much to be wrong and has good supporting data. As a theory, it shows how all that rock could be put together to fit the way it does in 25 years. It's unprecedented for rock to go up that fast -- and when I see people resisting the theory I shake my head on that alone. Then there's the amazing fit like you'd get with concrete you could sculpt any way you want or put in molds. Try getting rock to fit this way with tools on this amazing scale.
The theory explains why there's no remains of ramps more massive than the GP at Giza. With carved lifted stones there should be solid block ramp remains -- not rubble -- if you listen to engineers who are not apologists. The remains should be way more massive than the GP -- some estimate 7 times more massive. The theory explains how all the rock could be put together when there were only stone and copper tools. Don't forget about the custom fit at the backs of casing blocks on an amazing scale -- and the huge size Herototus and el-Latif say they saw.
The theory explains how big quartzite statues 60 feet high could be put up in the New Kingdom, and Morris cites perfectly round temple columns from the Old Kingdom -- easy to explain with geopolymers. Some of the columns are about 30 feet high and made with hard rock types -- not all are round so huge lathes won't work to solve the problem.
The theory explains tiny beads so small they would be really very hard to make with ancient tools. With geopolymer they're a snap -- just wrap some stone mix around a waxed fiber like a hair and then pull the hair out -- there's your amazingly tiny bead hole. Just let the bead cure and it will look like real stone. Davidovits has shown with his many patents showing this technology is real.
The theory explains all of the hard rock statues that are so finely made when there was only abrasive sand and copper and simple tools. All the crisscrossing sawmarks sweeping across the backs of hard rock statues suddenly make sense.
The theory explains why the Giza quarries are not many times bigger -- which they should be given all the broken blocks that normal building projects generate. The theory explains the lack of tool marks on most of the pyramid blocks. The theory explains the 200 ton temple blocks -- try to get one of those out the quarry. Try to get them out of the quarry and fit them so the strata line up with each other in blocks this size -- as they do at Giza in the Valley Temple. It's a snap if these strata are lift lines in concrete. But using levers? I don't think so.
Try to get out of the quarry the 1000 ton statues of Ramses -- bigger than any obelisk moved in modern days.
Sure Archae and Frank can try to pick away at these pints by protesting and presenting theoretical explanations and the debates can go on and on. But the easiest way is to just make concrete and everything is explained in one swoop -- it works as a theory and there's strong data like chemically bound water and all the microscopy work that bears out even though there's such a tangle with opponents. It only gets complicated because of the long history at Giza, the Arab tool marks and the relatively small open quarry field, etc.
Put all this together with the proof of geopolymer pots back in Syria 8000 years ago. These kind of pots turn salt water to fresh, and could be used by people traveling down the seacoast into Egypt. Now you can begin to see the technology was there so long ago and people only needed for some rock particles to be added to the kind of mix used to make the ion exchange pots. This is probably how hard stone vases got started in prehistory.
Then slowly "stone" starts showing up in construction works like tombs in the early dynasties. By the third D. the Egyptians discover at Saqqara a bed of kaolin limestone -- and they find out it reacts to make rock concrete and there's lots of it. They make the first pyramid for king Zoser. Then they find more of this kind of kaolin limestone at Giza -- just add some simple ingredients to the quarry and bring in the water by canal from the Nile during the floods. The Egyptians were good at diverting the river.
Geopolymers explain the flat surfaces on sarcophagi and casing blocks and level pyramid tiers and huge concave faces and the level GP platform 13 acres square. The theory can explain those vases with the super thin walls that we'd have a time making on a lathe. The geopolymer theory solves problem after problem after problem.
These are some of the reasons I think the theory is right.
I'm in contact with Morris and they are heavily involved in research that takes all of their time. They have to prioritize. Winning or losing debates in a chat room doesn't matter to them -- they can't afford to bother with such things. What matters to them is to keep generating good data.
Frank squawks because MM doesn't take time lately to answer his questions, and I know that if MM did hop to the task things would be clearer to you and everyone else. You have to put yourself in their shoes and think about what your priorities would be -- and just because Frank protests doesn't mean he's right. It just means that he has to wait and so does whoever wants to see their answers. You'll understand when you get that thing out of your garage and start dealing with lots of people -- some of whom will give you a hard time and you won't have time to deal with them all.
Now I want you to tell me exactly what you don't understand about the geopolymer theory. What exactly is it that doesn't make sense to you?
And I want to wish you success with your machine regardless of any fighting between us.
Sandy</HTML>
