thanks to all of you, i now have a list compiled of your most frequently asked questions and doubts.
often asked is, " why the sarsen ring shows no wear?"
next is statements that imply a working model is unimportant.
followed by soil test questions
and comparisons to other better-known theories.
all of these i will condense and post on my FAQ page at the website. i will have to shorten them and make them more to the point but i will try to retain the main point being made.
you have helped me greatly in determining what the greatest objections are likely to be to my theory. perhaps i should also add the question, "why is this theory so silly?"
here are my very brief answers.
first i am not at all sure that the sarsen ring shows no wear. many have mentioned how hard the stone is so it should have retained any mill wear but, if sarsen is so hard as to hold evidence of wear for 3000 years in the open then it is too hard for wooden rollers to score it very much.
the working model is important becouse it shows it is possible to have been a mill and it takes my theory to a WHOLE other level beyond theories that can't be demonstrated including the religious use theory. the astromomical theory is the only other theory that i know of that could have a working model.