- I have read a bit and watched your vids, but once it gets into chemistry and microspetrometry, etc. I don't understand the implications beyond having to accept the authors conclusions. But if scientific analysis is conducted with a firm commitment to remain within the realm of accepted science, by today's standards, then its possible, if there was an unknown technology, they could be misinterpreting, because they simply don't know what to look for.
"Easiest examples from Egypt where ALL the natural stone all has layered orientated nummulites (sedimentary must do!) but stone with binder inclusions, show random "batch" produced arrangements."
- This is where I'm beginning to think my perspective of their technology can also be considered in your definition of 'geopolymers'. I had thought 'stone softening' was an alternative to geopolymers, but we may only be differing on the viscosity state when it comes down to it. Because as for the evidence of disoriented nummulites, both concrete and 'stone softening' can have this result as I envision it. (happy to expand if necessary).
"There is NO WAY the limestone bedding was carved to accommodate the basalt pavers.!!!!
It was slush , at the least malleable stuff, but more likely man made."
- Again a common agreed upon statement for both your geopolymer and my stone softening. Maybe I've been a geopolymer guy all along.