Home > Video > Television: An Italian Professor believes he has the answer.

Television: An Italian Professor believes he has the answer.

January 3, 2015
Categories: Video Tags:
  1. January 3, 2015 at 10:08 am

    I guess the question is whether the Italian professor is Fanti or Garlaschelli.

    • January 3, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      or Giovanni Fazio?

  2. piero
    January 3, 2015 at 10:39 am

    I hope to be able to know something more about the ideas of this italian
    researcher. As you already know I have shown the way of SPM controls (= AFM, CFM, SNOM) in 1998 (International Conference, Turin), but then I could not accomplish much about positive results…
    Unfortunately I do not have my own analysis Laboratory …
    I suggested checking with the nano-mapping and then be able to know
    something about the true age of the material (= the old linen fibrils).
    … And see also: the three-point AFM bending tests (= nanomechanical tests), etc., etc.

    • piero
      January 5, 2015 at 6:15 am

      A great problem to overcome: I see a the lack of combinatory experiences
      in order to start with the “Evolution of Non-Destructive Dating” (= ENDD)…

      Perhaps Applied Technology is not, in itself, Invention…
      But in our case …
      Evolution of Technology permitted to guess something about our dating problem …
      I have read some line (written by Brian W. Arthur, “The Logic of Invention”, 2005
      See also : “The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves”
      http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Technology-What-Evolves/dp/1416544062) about
      the “old masters”:
      -William Fielding Ogburn
      -Abbott Payson Usher
      -Waldemar Kaempffert
      They produced theories of Invention…
      But these early theories were far from satisfactory.
      And it seems that moderrn research has shown that the actual process of invention varies greatly from historical case to historical case… and the universalities appear not to exist.

      Following Brian W. Arthur the process involved “is one of problem solving – recursive problem solving….” …and at the end of the paper by Brian Arthur we can see the short Glossary, where we can read the following explanations:

      – Recursiveness (as used here). = The property that a technology consists of sub-parts that are themselves technologies and that this statement repeats down to the simplest components.
      – Origination = The process by which a novel technology comes into being. (Invention, in common parlance).

      … Furthermore, it is strange to see the case where novel technologies are shaped by religious needs… … a strange case of “religious induced innovation” …

      What is being sought at the early stage is not a full design, not a full architecture …
      What is being sought is a base concept – a principle – the idea of some control …
      that will fulfill the requirements of the problem, along with some conception of the means needed to achieve this.
      — —
      And now I critique myself: a lot ‘of words, few (if any) however, are the facts …

      How can we avoid becoming hypercritical and hypoactive in ous discussions?

      • piero
        January 5, 2015 at 6:16 am

        Errata corrige:
        >our discussions

        Instead of :
        >ous duscussions

        • piero
          January 5, 2015 at 9:57 am

          I see that I have been hidden some of my words in my message. But, unfortunately, I no longer have the original message ….

          Anyway … here’s a part of what I wanted to add:

          In most cases of origination a group or team is at work, especially in the case of translating the concept into a working technology. …
          But it seems to me that (sometimes) I am only a voice claiming into desert …
          So it seems to me that I fulfill the required condition: a certain degree of obsession is required and cannot be generated in a diffuse group
          Bringing a radically different principle to life requires some isolation from standard thinking … in order to be able to start with new thoughts…

          At the end (…unfortunately) my discourse seems to assume tones a bit ‘paranoid and embarrassing, for this aspect I am certainly not happy. I like more clarity, I would like better show what you can get from the SPM analysis of linen fibrils in order to demonstrate the exact epoch for that ancient textile material (= Shroud and Sudarium of Oviedo).

        • piero
          January 5, 2015 at 10:47 am

          Here what I wrote (before to insert the link about a more recent work by Brian W. Arthur) :
          >I have read some line (written by Brian W. Arthur, “The Logic of Invention”, 2005) about the old masters:
          -William Fielding Ogburn
          -Abbott Payson Usher
          -Waldemar Kaempffert
          >Despite its vast number of applications – … (omitted) … – the possibilities of AFM are not yet exhausted.
          >Future trends involve optimised tips and combinations with other techniques, for example to simultaneously determine surface structure and fluorescence or electrical properties (Müller et al., 2006). …

          >Are you now itching to come up with your own applications for AFM? Then you might want to try and follow Philippe Jeanjacquot’s instructionsw for building your own instrument at school. It is a time-consuming project, but he and his students managed to create a feasibly low-cost microscope. There is one important catch though: you will need a vibration-free environment to set it up, such as a quiet cellar. If you can find that, your enthusiasm and ingenuity are the only limitations.

          A sharpened tungsten tip attached to a quartz tuning fork at resonance frequency is used to read out the
          sample’s surface height measurements …


          Here other vague links:

          Perhaps the Fourth Dimension guides you on a mind-expanding journey (… Is that a lucky travel? Is it unhindered ?).
          But now I would like to propose to you two sentences that seem almost aphorisms:

          -New technologies are never created from nothing. They are constructed from components that previously exist; and in turn these new technologies offer themselves as possible components – bulding blocks – for the construction of further new technologies. …
          (Arthur and Polak, 2006)

          – A new invention consists of technologies, either new or already in use, brought together in a way not previously seen. … (Source: “Invention as a Combinatorial Process : Evidence from US Patents”
          by Hyejin Youn, Louìs M. A. Bettecourt, Deborah Strumsky and José Lobo, 2014)
          — — —
          It does not seem to me to be in the case of violating copyrights for having prpoposto these two very short sentences.
          Perhaps our friend (and NY Attorney) John Klotz can say his opinion (or advice).

        • piero
          January 5, 2015 at 10:58 am

          Errata corrige:
          >for having proposed these two very short sentences.

          Instead of :
          >for having prpoposto these two very short sentences.
          — — —
          Piero = March 5, 2014 at 11:55 am wrote:
          >We have to try to be able to work using AFM controls on cellulosic chains and AFM measurements of elastic modulus (with feeble forces … perhaps … also less than 20 nN, roughly ten times the force needed to break a single atomic bond !) …

  3. January 3, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    I’ll be watching and recording.

  4. January 4, 2015 at 5:37 am

    Irritating that I live in the wrong country to watch this – though odds are it’s some already-dead theory.

  5. Stan Walker, MD
    January 4, 2015 at 10:04 pm

    Its Fantis!

  6. Louis
    January 5, 2015 at 7:50 am

    One wonders what Bible secret has been found that relates to the Shroud. It had better be convincing, given that Reza Aslan with his hidden agenda aiming at Jesus is making a loud noise in the US and has a lot of people listening to him or reading what he writes.

  7. January 5, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Shhh! It’s a secret.

  8. Louis
    January 5, 2015 at 8:32 am

    Problems also arise when there is no secret, just speculation, which paves the way for more rubbish, even in Biblical Archaeology:
    Pilate was no friend of the Jews, the last thing he would do was to try Jesus in Herod’ palace. He only allowed himself to bend to pressure from Caiaphas because he was afraid that Tiberius would send him back to Rome. All the high priest had to do was to dispatch a letter to the emperor. The empire was more important, not any governor, be it in Palestine or elsewhere.

  9. January 8, 2015 at 6:31 am

    The video is now online:

    “Giulio Fanti and the Turin Shroud!

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: