What I find most exciting is the claim that a sample from the center of the body would have been dated at 6500 years in the future. Now, that’s science! Who said that time travel hasn’t been put into the mix?
2 Likes
Why do find the need for sarcasm here. I know you understand the difference between real dating and C-14 content. He has made a model that can easily be falsified. It also fits all the data.
Variation in contamination? Sample variability? One needn’t invoke thermal neutron capture or miracles. Even scientific theists prefer natural mechanics as explanations.
1 Like
Pointing and laughing seems the only reasonable response at this point.
4 Likes
Hi Argon
The Rogers hypothesis is the easiest to accept based on a straight forward explanation of cotton used for repair. The problem is it does not explain the dating of the Sudarium. Ruckers hypothesis can explain Sudarium’s date being outside the ressurection. It also explains the sample quantity of C-14 increasing as you move closer to the body.
Point and laughing is a poor substitute to a real argument that takes all the data into account.
Agreed, except that you have never come within a mile of a real argument that takes all the data into acount.
2 Likes
I’m skeptical that the c14 difference is significant enough to draw a conclusion about distributions.
Here’s a testable hypothesis: The shroud is contaminated in varying degrees in different locations. If so, testing fabric from diverse locations would show variable dates with some older ones under the image
I can create a distinct, different testable hypothesis so I guess there must be possible validity for it.
1 Like
Really, if one wants to make the case for thermal neutron exposure, show other changes one should expect to find. It produces a fingerprint of multiple changes. This would provide other necessary, orthogonal evidence for the mechanism. For example, nitrogen is not the only element that can absorb neutrons, nor is it the most efficient. @colewd, what other observations do you expect to see after linen is bombarded by neutrons?
1 Like
The carbon dating is rock solid. The contrary data presented is contrived by parties invested in the authenticity of the shroud and are not compelling individually or collectively.
But in all of this discussion, I have yet to see a single blithering reference to what was supposed to be fissile in Jesus’ body, and the range of neutron thermal energies which would be absorbed by the fabric.
Quit skirting around this, @Giltil and @colewd. Because if there was no fission, why are we wasting time going on about neutrons?
1 Like
Bill, there are two simple experiments you can perform to test whether the Turin shroud exhibits an imprint derived from a dead body.
-
Try lying on your back on a flat surface and see if your hands can cover your crotch.
-
Spread some kind of paste (see suggestions in the video above) that will adhere to fabric over your face, then press some cloth over your face that will pick up the paste and see what the “image” of your face looks like.
1 Like
Hi Ron
On what do you base your claim that there is no fission?
Here is a paper by another author of what might be expected.
Shroud florence measuremnts.pdf (2.0 MB)
Your complete lack of a response as to the supposed fissile material in Jesus body. It is a simple question.
1 Like
The paper notes fluorescence. The author hypothesizes that this is due to’ ‘deuterium splitting’ [Note added in edit: Or fusion?] producing the neutron flux but doesn’t know if that’s the cause. So, here we’re presented with phenomenon for which the connection to neutron emission is proposed. It’s a phenomena in search of a cause.
I am asking about changes we know that a high neutron flux would produce. Assuming neutron irradiation happened, what other changes to the linen would one expect to find? There are distinct signatures that one may see. For example, investigate what other elements absorb neutrons and the effects on isotopic ratios. What would you expect to find?
Aside: Gads, so the neutron rabbit hole goes even deeper. Not only invoking an unprecedented burst of neutrons from a dead body but adding unprecedented deuterium fission in the body as the source. Sure, why not invoke a local change in the fine structure constant too? Here’s another idea… The divine emination did not cause neutron emission but actually stabilized/preserved the atomic nuclei in the cloth until the early 1000s AD. People noted that the shroud appeared more vibrant until about that time. Maybe the protective emination also fell away at that particular date, leaving the image less visible and releasing the original c14 to decay at its natural rate, which would produce a c14 date that’s too young.
2 Likes
Which states:
Finally, let us point out that the total UV radiation power required to color a linen
surface corresponding to a human body, of the order of 16 × 106 W/cm2 × 17.000 cm2 = 2.7 × 1011 W, is impressive, and cannot be delivered by any UV laser built to date. The enigma of the origin of the body image of the Turin Shroud still “is a challenge to our intelligence” [27].
The problem that Lazzaro appears to be alluding to is not the power of the laser needed to (dis)colour any specific area, but the power required to (dis)colour the whole surface simultaneously – though why anybody would attempt to do it simultaneously with a laser is beyond me.
Rather than dealing in W (power) it would be more useful to specify the Wh (energy) that would have been needed to use the laser to sequentially (dis)colour the whole surface – allowing us to calculate the time it would take either by running the laser for several hours, or by exposure to sunlight for several months.
1 Like
Hi Ron
As I responded to John the fission could be a bi product of a resurrection or supernatural event. Now we are looking at a cause that maybe beyond the reach of current scientific knowledge. What we are left with is trying to make sense of the data.
-An image that is hard to explain made of microscopic changes to the chemistry of the outer cloth
-Pollen data that is Middle Eastern in origin
-Blood samples and patterns that match the sudarium and are rare AB blood type.
-Florescence variation across the shroud that appears to support Ruckers hypothesis
-Carbon dates that have more variation than expected and get younger as you move closer to the middle of the body
-Carbon dating that does not confirm early first century dating
-Other less reliable dating methods that are much closer
Ruckers hypothesis fits this data. What is the urgency to dismiss it?
A reliable source for this unsubstantiated claim? And particularly why we should take this source’s word for it over that of Walter McCrone – the expert who actually took the samples and analysed them?
A reliable source for this unsubstantiated claim?
Your claims of the probability of this has already been debunked – and your ignorance of the field of statistics (further) exposed.
Given that neither have alternate sources of florescence been ruled out, nor has it been demonstrated that neutron-burst-caused florescence persists over 2000 years, this claim is unsubstantiated.
The variation was small, and easily accounted for by an unexpected source of contamination (e.g. due to different cleaning methods).
As no evidence was presented that the “36 years per cm” figure is statistically significant, this claim is likewise unsubstantiated.
Given that the “early first century dating” comes from methodologies that have not been validated, and appear to have been confected solely to cast doubt on the carbon-dating of the shroud, this claim is likewise unsubtantiated.
This claim is so vague as to be incomprehensible.
Given this list of unsubstantiated and/or debunked claims, I look at amusement at Bill’s earlier complaint:
Talk about “the pot calling the kettle black”. 
But this isn’t “data” – it’s just a list of unsubstantiated and/or debunked claims – i.e. it is “speech intended to persuade without regard for truth” – i.e. bullshit.
As such, it provides no “common ground” for discussing the age and/or authenticity of the Shroud.
3 Likes
Still no. For fission the be a byproduct of anything, fissile material is required. What was the fissile material in Jesus’ body?
To move things along, there wasn’t any, was there?
2 Likes
Speaking of Walter McCrone, this may be informative:
Published Research
Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope Volume 28:3/4, p. 105, p. 115, 1980; The Microscope Volume 29:1, p. 19, 1981; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst, 4/5, p.50, 1987/1988; and Accounts of Chemical Research, Volume 23:3, pp. 77-83, 1990.
Conclusion
The “Shroud” of Turin is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.[1]
So, we have multiple, peer-reviewed sources for the the “image” not being due to “hard to explain … microscopic changes to the chemistry of the outer cloth”. I think this claim can therefore be moved from “unsubstantiated” to “debunked”.
1 Like
It would seem that there is no evidence that a neutron burst was either a necessary, an expected, or even a likely byproduct of resurrection, nor that it was an observed byproduct of it.
It’s presence in the scenario would therefore appear to be solely as one of the few means (however ludicrously unlikely) to significantly distort carbon-dating results.
This is clearly not a product of “follow[ing] the evidence wherever it lead[s]”, but of starting with the conclusion that “the Shroud is authentic” and desperately looking for some way (no matter how ludicrous) of supporting this conclusion.
2 Likes