Ilikepuglia reports: Shroud of Turin, Bari researchers and scholars from around the world: [is The an] international scientific event [is] unprecedented in Puglia. Well, you get the idea. That was a work-over of a Goggle translation. The following paragraphs are raw translation:
The event, titled "Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation 2014" (developments in the investigation Shroud) and briefly indicated by the acronym ATSI 2014 should be talked much about it, according to the expectations of researchers and studies dare around the world.
For the first time, in fact, a scientific organization of international first class as the ‘Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE), present in 150 countries around the world, headquartered in New York, which includes in itself the best studios dare and researchers around the world in the field of electrical engineering and electronics, has inserted between the themes of his meetings the studies o research on a subject so well known and debated as the Shroud of Turin. The merit of the initiative should be recognized prof. Dario Petri, as President of the Italian Section of the IEEE, which was followed by the accession of prof. Francis Lattarulo, afferent sindonologist at the Politecnico di Bari, who took over the task of overall coordination and local levels.
This is unprecedented, no doubt about it and not just in Puglia.
Have they a speakers’ list and abstracts yet? It will be interesting to see what the ‘advances’ are. I shall be especially interested to see if Professor Fanti can get any wider scientific support for his dating procedures.
Ancient textiles, “lignocellulosic investigations” and cellulosic chains…
Here two old and boring questions :
Question Number 1
– What is your idea about the measurements of cellulosic DP of linen fibrils ?
In the past ( August 20, 2012 at 10:45 am), on this blog,
I wrote:
>In order to show what is the true age we have to control the linen fibrils.
>Perhaps we can think to do something about the Viscoelastic Measurements
of cellulosic chains (see also : the single cellulosic chains and the hydrogen bonds) by Driven Oscillation of an Atomic Force Microscope Cantilever… or similar works.
>Is it too difficult that control ?
— —
Here an excerpt from another message [dated August 21, 2012 at 8:25 am]
where I wrote:
>The title of an old work :
>Surface structure of native cellulose microcrystals by AFM
A.A. Baker, W. Helbert, J. Sugiyama and M.J. Miles
>Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing
Volume 66, Supplement 1 (1998), S559-S563, DOI: 10.1007/s003399870002
>The most significant finding in this work is that it has been possible
to image the cellobiose repeat along the chain because of
topographic differences associated with the asymmetric glucose unit,
and thus identify triclinic structure on the microcrystal surface. …
— —
In a message dated : August 24, 2012 at 10:43 am
I wrote:
>… In my idea the problem to solve is the following :
>How to find the length of a single chain ?
>You can think that a cellulosic chain can be a vibrating string…
>… … You can also remember Lord Kelvin and the dissipation
of the mechanical energy, the mechanical damping, etc.
>These things are more interesting at level of fibres, for the characterisation
of mechanical behaviour of deformations (or stresses) below the level of destruction.
>See also : the damping coefficient (and the viscous damping ratio, etc.) and the inherent equations.
>… …Which types of playing techniques for the molecular chain ? … …
— — — —
Question Number 2
– What is your idea about the viscoelastic properties of linen fibrils ?
Today
I have found a “vague study”:
“Microrheology to explore protein and cell dynamics”
by
Warren, Rebecca Louisa (2012)
Microrheology to explore protein and cell dynamics.
PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
[a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Division of Biomedical Engineering,
School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, 2012.
Thesis (Ph.D.) — University of Glasgow, 2012. ]
Link:
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3344/
Here an excerpt from the abstract:
>… I explore the applications of optical tweezers and passive video particle tracking microrheology for bioanalytical applications … …
>… …we have developed two new self-consistent procedures for measuring the linear viscoelastic properties of materials across the widest frequency range achievable with optical tweezers (Phys.Review E. (2010) 81:2, and J. Optics (2011) 13:4). Furthermore, we present a straightforward procedure for measuring the in vivo linear viscoelastic properties of single cells via passive video particle tracking microrheology of single beads attached to the cells’ exterior. Notably, the procedure presented here represents an alternative methodology that can be extended to many experimental formats and provides a simple addition to existing cellular physiology studies. In addition, we introduce new methodologies for deriving the concentration scaling laws of polymer and biopolymer solutions from microrheological measurements carried out with optical tweezers. These methods have been adopted to investigate the concentration scaling laws of in vitro reconstituted actin solutions and actin/myosin solutions.
— —
Perhaps you can develop a particular variant of quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) called QCM-with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D) that allows simultaneous and simple measurements of changes in adsorbed mass as well as the viscoelastic property (D-factor) … …
Or other interesting tools (and nano-tools)…
— —
Now I ask:
What is your interesting idea ?
Which are the best quantum dots to use
in “passive video particle tracking microrheology” ?
Cheers …
Although I am opposed to the idea of dyeing the linen fibrils with quantum dots (QDs), my curiosity leads me to propose some question regarding the works on linen fibrils…
Perhaps it’s possible to work using a nanoscale mechanochemical method to deliver fluorescent quantum dots (QDs) into linen fibrils, using a membrane-penetrating nanoneedle …
Is that a feasible operation?
In any case I would prefer to use Not Destructive Tests (= NDT) and Not Manipulative Controls (NMC) with AFM, etc. In short, we should “wash out” quantum dots …
Well…
What is your opinion about the right AFM controls?
There will be two Israeli scholars who will talk on ancient textiles (controversial area, of course) and one professor from Sri Lanka (Uppsala University, Sweden) who will have something to say about lightning, which should be interesting to Fanti.
I am glad to hear that there will be something on textiles as this is an area where little research seems to have been done while new ancient textiles are being discovered by the day, so potentially there is room for ‘advance’ here.
First earthquakes, now lightning- sounds interesting.
That is true, and one must presume that the fact that the textile experts are Israeli should bring some advances. You should find something here:
http://dee.poliba.it/atsi2014/index.htm
Thanks, Louis. It is good that contributors have to highlight the way in which their papers contain ‘advances’ as this will avoid the repetition of material that has already been published.
You’re welcome, Charles. I trust the two Israelis and one Sri Lankan, Professor Vernon Cooray:
http://www.iclp-centre.org/cooray.html
will have something interesting to say, on textiles and lightning, respectively.
I submitted a paper to this conference that argued the Holy Shroud was not authentic because it contains an image, and images are always created by human beings. One of the reviewers rejected my paper because it did not promote the authenticity of the Shroud. This is against the code of ethics of the IEEE because it is like publishing an article about evolutionary biology that promotes the theory of intelligent design. I intend to file a complaint against the conference organizers with the IEEE. Papers accepted and presented at IEEE conferences are published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. I think the IEEE would be perfectly justified in stripping the conference of its IEEE logo and all the benefits of such an association. I told Dario Petrie that I would not proceed with this complaint if the conference repudiated the reviewer’s comments and reasons for rejecting my paper.
I make it a point to stress fair play. There must be something wrong with your paper if it was not accepted for both the Saint Louis and Bari conferences. Perhaps you should change some things and rewrite it to make it more acceptable?
You have written for Catholic Truth – Scotland.
I can’t say because no one is willing to discuss my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) and the supportive papers I submitted to the St. Louis and Bari conferences. I have no way of knowing what the shortcomings are of my presentation. I got only one invitation to give my lecture. I arrived at the parish in Manhattan with my slides and the pastor told me he decided to cancel my presentation because I was not promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. I complained to the Vicar General, who told me that it was a matter than concerned only me and the pastor. I said there was no way the pastor and me could resolve our disagreement and asked to give a presentation to the pastor with other knowledgeable Catholics to discuss the disagreement. Cardinal Dolan told me I was “debunking” the Shroud, and I filed charges against him with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. So far no attempt has been made to resolve the conflict between me and Cardinal Dolan.
Filed charges against him with the CDF? Good luck with that. We’ve had thousands of clergy abuse cases disappear into the Vatican abyss over the last few decades. And you expect quick action against a prominent Cardinal who is merely trying to ‘protect’ the faith?
Your case amounts to little more than a petty triviality…to be honest. Move on.
Effect of lightning in association with earthquake may be an interesting avenue of research to explore. D L Henshaw has carried out fundamental research showing tendency of radon molecules to be attracted to domestic electrical wiring operating at 50 Hz. This has been picked up by a few local authorities in UK concerning their building planning regimes near high voltage transmission lines, because of increased cancer risks with radon, and I spotted a Youtube video on it. There’s also other material generally available. Henshaw’s research paper might be found at:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262792866_Enhanced_deposition_of_radon_daughter_nuclei_in_the_vicinity_of_power_frequency_electromagnetic_fields
Synoptic gospel accounts refer to earthquake at crucifixion and Matthew suggests that it was another earthquake that hurled the stone from the tomb entrance. There’s no mention of lightning, but there is reference to a darkness, sometimes interpreted as a wind-driven dust cloud. I guess that even dust clouds could be charged with static electricity so that you could then get lightning strikes. So the earthquake would give emission of radon, together with its other effects, and a concurrent lightning strike would result in a very powerful electric current and strong magnetic field surges, maybe concentrating the radon. Lightning of course doesn’t operate at 50 Hz, but maybe that’s not such a significant factor, and it merely happens that only 50 Hz power lines were tested because it’s the standard.
If both radon and electricity (lightning type) were both involved in producing the TS image, then it’s not so surprising that the imaging process has remained so elusive. Could this be a new avenue of future research?
Professsor Giulio Fanti’s corona discharge hypothesis is based on ball lightning.
Not.
Louis, ball lightning is an external source of energy ! …
Professsor Giulio Fanti’s corona discharge hypothesis indicates an emanation of energy from the Corpse/Body of Man (= internal source of energy) and instead it seems to me that the idea is of the lightning was reported only in relation to a particular view (a vision of Emmerich or Valtorta) …
Am I wrong in my correction?
I hope in your comments…
Piero, in the interview that was published Professor Giulio Fanti told me that the corona discharge was possibly connected to ball lightning.
This interview-article was posted on the Holy Shroud Guild website but at my request my folder was deleted, for reasons that will soon be made known by me. I am sending it to Dan in pdf format, who can upload it if he wishes to do so. I can understand the pressure he faces. Welcome to the world of Shroud studies!
Louis, I remembered that Alan Adler indicated that idea (If I am right he expressed this idea before Giulio Fanti).
Searching, looking through the countless books about the shroud, we can see that Dr. Fred Zugibe indicated that Igor Benson suggested that ball lightning might have been the culprit, striking the body during an electrical storm…
But ball lightning is an extremely rare and poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon that accompanies electrical storms (and see also the “earthquake lights” !…).
It manifests as a glowing ball about the size of a basketball or, sometimes, as small as a golf ball or as large as a small car…
But …
You are right, because I have read your paper:
https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/louis-science_and_religion_meet_in_shroud_research-1.pdf
and
then there is the phrase:
>Still others, and I am among them, suppose that corona discharge explains the image formation. But this phenomenon was caused by a particular fact such as ball lightning, which does not exclude another fact, correlated to what is described in the Gospels as having happened on that Sunday morning.
This seems to be a contradiction because Eng. G. Fanti supposed an internal source of energy and not an external source …
What a strange confusion !
So… it’s just a point of view expressed in an interview
and IMHO this is not true Science!
In any case I believe that you have not well understood the idea by prof. Fanti.
So, try to read all the papers written by prof. Giulio Fanti … or ask to him because
I am not responsible for what other researchers have spoken in an interview…
Good luck!
Perhaps the best solution is a direct answer by Fanti on that particular and controversial argument…
If the Shroud is scientifically proven to be Christ’s burial cloth then it would be the physical evidence of Jesus Christ’s death.
The glorious Resurrection is the Great Mystery of Faith.
In my opinion , until now, there is not yet a true scientific proof about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What is your idea ?
David Roemer certainly should be given ‘academic’ reasons for the rejection of his paper. If, as he asserts, he has been told that it has been rejected on the grounds that it does not promote the authenticity of the Shroud, then the participation of a body such as the IEEE does seem strange.
One would hope that the organisers and the IEEE would clarify the situation as it does need to made clear what the status of the conference is. If only those committed to the authenticity of the Shroud can submit papers, we need to know that.
I see that according to the blurb on the IEEE website attendance is only scheduled at 25 but the conference is open to ALL those interested in scientific research on the Shroud with no mention of any prior commitment to its authenticity.
Hi David, why not publish your paper on your website and give us a link here. Nowhere in the world is there a wider diversity of experts on the shroud than among the commenters here. Although individually we may have quite strong convictions, together we represent as fair-minded a collection of advisors as you can find. Surprisingly, considering some other websites I have browsed in the past, we even read the research submitted, and investigate its references, its evidence, its relevance and its ramifications in quite exhaustive detail.
I ought to say, to be fair, that your previous incursions (see: Russ Breault and Pastor Caspar McCloud Discuss the Shroud, February 8, 2014) have not withstood critical assessment well. There are several of us here who also tend towards non-authenticity, but we do not uncritically support non-authentic ideas. It may be that there were other reasons for the rejection of your paper by the Bari Conference reviewers, such as a lack of references for your statements, or the presentation of premises as axiomatic when they are no such thing. Your statement above, for instance, “it contains an image, and images are always created by human beings,” needs both explanation and justification before it can be built upon as evidence.
David has sent me his paper and the letter of rejection. The abstract reads, “Abstract—This paper examines the differences between the methods of inquiry called science, metaphysics, philosophy, theology, and history in the context of investigations of the Shroud of Turin.” The paper is 1400 words in length.
Unfortunately, as I read David’s cover email, he sent these only because I might be interested in them. If he gives me permission I will show the paper here. If David obtains permission from the Bari organizers I will also publish the letter of rejection. Frankly, without being able to see these documents in the light of day, it is difficult to discuss this topic further.
@David Goulet
I initially filed the complaint with the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization. The Under-Secretary of that group advised me to file the complaint with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which I did on February 24, 2014, in a registered letter. On July 7, 2014, I advised the CDF of Bruno Barberis’s roll in rejecting my presentations at the St. Louis and Bari conferences. Barberis is the science consultant to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud. [edited to remove an unsubstantiated accusation]
Bottom line, David, your paper should not be presented at either conference. I think Hugh Farey has very effectively summarized why. Moreover, I think that any official who controls the use of presentation venues in the Catholic Church or any church has the right to not allow you to make your presentations in those places. You may have the right to complain but I think your complaints have no merit. Why not find your own venue in a non-Catholic church or secular place and make your presentations.
I published your paper. What it contains is the issue if anyone wishes to discuss this. I can’t see why because it has nothing to do with the shroud. Your unhappiness with church officials is not the issue here. Unsubstantiated accusations are not welcome. Period.