Turin Shroud

kylith

There are new claims that it does come from the era of Jesus.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/turin-shroud-may-date-from-time-of-jesus-30003189.html

Now, I'm no scientician so hopefully someone can explain this to me

The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.

Aren't neutrons sub-atomic particles? Can earthquakes release sub atomic particles? Wouldn't it require nuclear fission?

This flood of neutrons may have imprinted an X-ray-like image onto the linen burial cloth, say the researches.

I can't even form a coherent question here except 'Huh?' How could it do this without the cloth being treated, as far as I know, to react in order to produce any kind of photographic image.

In addition, the radiation emissions would have increased the level of carbon-14 isotopes in the Shroud, which would make it appear younger.

Isn't the nature of the decay of carbon-14 very regular? If the shroud was in fact coated with new carbon-14 in 33CE how could that give a date in the Middle Ages? Time travelling neutrons?

Pherekydes

A somewhat telling piece of info from wiki:

Alberto Carpinteri is professor in science of construction at the Polytechnic University of Turin and was director of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRiM) in Turin. He is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences.

He is mainly known for his contribution in the study of piezonuclear fission, which is the purported theory that "compressing solids can provoke nucleus-splitting reactions without emitting gamma-rays or producing nuclear waste".

In 2013 INRiM was set in temporary receivership and Carpinteri dismissed after the resignation of two-thirds of the board of directors in objection of Carpinteri's support in the purported theory of piezonuclear fission.

Further reading:

Italian government slams brakes on piezonuclear fission research

Zillah

It's perfectly plausible.

All that would have had to happen is for the communion wine to reverse its polarity, reroute the radiation through the shroud circuits and you could easily create a quantum time-bubble in which this make sense.

kylith

Zillah wrote: »

It's perfectly plausible.

All that would have had to happen is for the communion wine to reverse its polarity, reroute the radiation through the shroud circuits and you could easily create a quantum time-bubble in which this make sense.

Thank you for that reasonable and scientific explanation

lazygal

The flux capacitor did it, sillies.

Zillah

You'd need a pair of reason de-couplers and some sceptiscope suppressors.

The comments on that article are driving me nuts.

Knasher

kylith wrote: »

Isn't the nature of the decay of carbon-14 very regular? If the shroud was in fact coated with new carbon-14 in 33CE how could that give a date in the Middle Ages? Time travelling neutrons?

The story sounds like nonsense to me, especially after reading what Pherekydes linked to. But just on this.

Carbon 14 dating works by comparing the amount of carbon 14 to the amount of carbon 12. The half life of carbon 14 is about 6,000 years and it is absolutely regular over time. It decays into nitrogen-14 and when all the carbon 14 is gone the dating is no longer accurate after about 60,000 years.

Anyway if you were to introduce a source of carbon 14 then the ratio would make it look younger than it really is. But you would also have to not introduce too much because if it exceeds the expected ratio of 14 to 12 for a living organism then that would clearly be a sign of something going wrong.

All that's assuming that it is possible to introduce carbon 14 into something like this, which I don't think is the case.

Sarky

It sounds like kind of science J C would be into, in that it sounds like complete f*cking nonsense that'd make the technobabble from Star Trek look respectable.

Penn

It just sounds like "Let's use terms people have heard but don't really understand to explain what we want it to". Kinda like when hackers in films need to "reroute a program so they can bypass the firewall and insert a virus into the mainframe"

Delirium

I'm beginning to think it's not the face of Jesus on the shroud but rather it is Dr. Bruce Banner :eek::P

shruikan2553

I have faith that its just an old cloth. Mwahaha now you all have to accept my view because its my faith!

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

The flux capacitor did it, sillies.

And here was I thinking it was the effect of the quantum sodomizer.

Silly me.

expectationlost

good article tracing this story http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/02/14/the-shroud-of-turin-pseudoscience-and-journalism/

Kidchameleon

Plenty of things are still around today that were around before, during and after the time of Jesus. Who cares about this poxy rag, let them believe what they want.

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Plenty of things are still around today that were around before, during and after the time of Jesus. Who cares about this poxy rag, let them believe what they want.

Kidchameleon I can never understand your motivation.

I think it's a good idea to try to believe true things for good reasons. Following from that I think it is important to expose nonsense when faced with it so others can also have the information . Of course it's almost certainly no more than a 'poxy rag', and people are entitled to believe what they like about it. But why oppose critical discussion of the truth about it.

I'm not sure but I think I remember you saying you are non-theist of some kind. But you seem to oppose discussion which exposes mistruths about theistic claims. Why?

Maybe you can just sit and rationalise the truths of reality without need for discussion with others. I might not be as smart as you, but I need evidence and time to discuss ideas before I can determine how much truth is in them.

Why do you want to end the discussion?

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But you seem to oppose discussion which exposes mistruths about theistic claims. Why?

Discussion about such things is fine, having a laugh at believers expense (which goes on regularly here) is pathetic.

As far as I know, the Church does not claim the shroud is genuine.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster but if somebody wants to, well fair play to them. Who am I to judge?

joseph brand

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Discussion about such things is fine, having a laugh at believers expense (which goes on regularly here) is pathetic.

As far as I know, the Church does not claim the shroud is genuine.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster but if somebody wants to, well fair play to them. Who am I to judge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cn7xfBpZ3M

:D

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Discussion about such things is fine, having a laugh at believers expense (which goes on regularly here) is pathetic.

As far as I know, the Church does not claim the shroud is genuine.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster but if somebody wants to, well fair play to them. Who am I to judge?

Who are you to judge? Interesting question. You can judge the person's idea to be ridiculous. That should have little impact on your judgement of the person as a whole.

The belief in 'flat earth' is ridiculous. Moreover the understanding of the reality of the earth as round and the forces that make it round has allowed us to learn about other things. Good luck building a space programme based on 'Flat earth' science.

Laughing at people can be mean spirited. On the other hand ridiculous ideas are, by definition, worthy of ridicule. People are free to believe what they want and that should never be in doubt. If ideas are worthy of ridicule, expect ridicule.

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If ideas are worthy of ridicule, expect ridicule.

I hate bully's, and that's essentially what you are advocating here. People are different, deal with it.

El_Duderino 09

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I hate bully's, and that's essentially what you are advocating here. People are different, deal with it.

I think you missed my last post about judging the idea not the person who holds it.

People deserve protection whilst ideas do not.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I hate bully's, and that's essentially what you are advocating here. People are different, deal with it.

Sorry, you hate bully's what?

MrP

Doctor Jimbob

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Discussion about such things is fine, having a laugh at believers expense (which goes on regularly here) is pathetic.

As far as I know, the Church does not claim the shroud is genuine.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster but if somebody wants to, well fair play to them. Who am I to judge?

If someone is secure in their faith, I'd say wouldn't be too bothered by some people having a laugh over their beliefs. They can just tell themselves all the mean little atheists are going to hell anyway.