After three years reading this blog I have come to believe that of all the hypotheses ever proposed for how the image came to be Charles Freeman’s comes closest to the mark even as his arrow misses the target by a country mile.
To Paulette, it is easy to criticize but hard to act and substantiate your belief. BTW what is your opinion? Are you just another archmiraculist relying on biased observations?
And Hugh chimed in:
But keep an open mind, Paulette. There’s always a possibility that a naturalistic mechanism will turn up.
I sort of agree with you, Paulette. And I’m not an archanythingorother whatsoever.
Can Paulette or Dan explain why they feel Freeman’s is closest of the misses? Because I’d have to go with Colin or Dave Hines or Max before Charles’ theory.
On another thread, I wrote:
” Reminder for Paulette: Red Heifer ashes and/or Jerusalem limestone dust –mixed with warm/hot (55°-85° Celsius) water with or without lactic and/or uric acid– can gelatinized starch. In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, low temperature alkali gelatinisation of starch residuals present in ancient linen cloth could account for the bloodied body imprint recording in terms of ultra fine printing paste/medium and be right on the sindonological target center.”
“Paulettte, just too bad (after three years reading this blog) you still cannot hear the vibration of my arrows as they move down range and hit the target centre ;-)!”
On February 22, 2013 at 12:50 pm, I wrote:
“Addendum: Malky/Jerusalem limestone dust mixed with collected rainwater could be used to purify the deceased’s body (alkaline waters to kill flesh flies’ larvae and blow-flies’ eggs) and Red Heifer ashes mixed with pure living water to purify Yeshua’s shed innocent blood).”
“Charles Freeman’s comes closest to the mark”
Sorry but i’ve not seriously studied Charles Freeman’s hypothesis, what are the main differences with Mc Crone’s theory?
It was McCrone’s opinion that if all the ochre on the shroud was removed, there would be no image on it at all. Freeman’s opinion is that all the pigment actually has been removed, and a residual image, possibly caused by a reaction of the paint’s constituents with the cloth, remains. This is the same as Garlaschelli’s idea too.
Unfortunatelly for their authors, all these scenario don’t take into account the strong evidence of the bloodstains, which PROVES that the Shroud is NOT a man-made creation… Considering the image without taking into account the evidence of the blood and serum stains is a big mistake (a crucial one!) that many people commit and it’s a shame.
The evidence of the bloodstains is by no means as definitive as Yannick thinks, and cannot be said to prove anything.
Blood stains are there. Is it a painting? Or is it created by Biological or chemical or radiation process?
So far no one was able to give an reasonable answer to those questions. However Mr Freeman is 100% sure that it is a painting.
Nor is it as indefinite as implied by Hugh Farey’s comment!
To rephrase Pilate’s question: “WHAT IS PROOF??!!” Or alternatively: “PROOF? WHAT IS THAT??!!”
If we listen to STURP and a very big bunch of medical and forensic experts, the evidence of the bloodstains is enough to understand that the Shroud is a real burial cloth that has enveloped for a short period of time the real corpse of a scourged and crucified man. Isn’t that enough for you? The FACT that we’re dealing with a real burial cloth doesn’t leave us a lot of options if we want it to be a false relic. To me, the only possible hypothesis of that nature must involved the real crucified body of an anonymous man and this is surely not the most probable hypothesis in regard of all the data coming from the Shroud…
Complement: When I talk about an “hypothesis of that nature that must involved the real crucified body of an anonymous man”, I refer to the scenario involving a false relic that would have been created by someone (or many people) who would have used the real burial cloth of a real crucified man in order to produce a false relic of Christ, while most probably having in mind to only created a false shroud that would show the bloody stigmata of Christ. In such a scenario, the body image would probably have been a sort of “natural bonus” that would have been unexpected by the person (or persons) who wanted to creates such a false relic… But as I said, this kind of scenario is much more improbable than the one involving the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth (whether he was Christ and Resurrected is another story).
Last thing: In the “natural” forgery scenario I described, we must assume that the person (or many people) who would have created the relic would have scourged and crucified himself (or themselves) the anonymous shroud man, mainly because of the presence of a cap of thorns, which would surely have been design to reproduced the Gospel story of the very unusual crowning of thorns. Again, such a gruesome scenario is highly improbable…
Last thing (again): I just want to quote the beginning of my 2012 paper about the evidence of the bloodstains:
“In one, if not the best Shroud of Turin documentary I’ve ever watched, The Wonder of the Shroud1 (along with Unfolding the Shroud and Secrets of the Dead), Fr. Martin Haigh reported a very clever and true statement from professor James Cameron (British Home Office Pathologist), that anybody interested in the Shroud should always keep this in mind, simply because it is a proven fact (it’s perhaps the most solid proven fact in all the scientific aspects regarding the Shroud). Here’s what professor Cameron had to say about the Shroud: “From the evidence of the bloodstains alone, this is clearly not a human forgery.” And you can be sure that this statement can be backed-up by a majority of medical or blood experts who have carefully studied the Shroud over the years, like Pierre Barbet, Rudolf W. Hynek, Giovanni Battista Judica-Cordiglia, Pierluigi Baima-Bollone, Sebastiano Rodante, Alan Adler, John Heller, Robert Bucklin, Frederick Zugibe, Gilbert Lavoie, Pierre Merat and many more!!! There’s absolutely no doubt about the fact that, along with professor Cameron, all these experts could have testified in court that the bloodstains on the Shroud come from a real human body. And not only that, a human body who was dead at the time he was put in this burial cloth.”
I want to underline this statement from professor Cameron, who was a forensic expert from England: “From the evidence of the bloodstains alone, this is clearly not a human forgery.”
“Isn’t that enough for you?” Well, no. It’s quite a lot, granted, and I do think, although many don’t, that the blood is real blood. However, very few of the celebrated pathologists actually worked on the ‘blood’ rather than on photographs of it, and the various rather feeble attempts to explain how exactly it got onto the cloth still leave much to be desired. Neither its colour nor its pattern nor its chemical makeup have been satisfactorily explained, and such experiments which have been carried out have not supported authenticity well. In short, as I said before, the evidence of the bloodstains is not definitive, and I can be very sure that Yannick’s confidence in ‘proven facts’ would certainly not be backed up by any of the scientists he lists. They might give professional support, but scientists do not use the words ‘proven fact’ as readily as Yannick supposes.
When I see the opinions expressed by Barbet, Baima and Adler in their books, these are as close as a “proven fact” opinion concerning the blood that you can get (I’m only talking about the ones who wrote books that I read). In that context, it’s wrong to say that these professionals were not 100% convinced that the blood is really blood and that it must have come from the Shroud man himself. Many of these professionals are, on the contrary to what you express, true experts on questions regarding blood, so for me, that’s well enough to understand that the Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man whom dead body left an imprint on the cloth’s surface, for which we still have no definitive explanation.
But if you want to keep on thinking what you think and therefore wasting your time looking in wrong directions in order to find the truth regarding the Shroud, go ahead. It’s certainly not me who will tell you what you want to do and it’s certainly no me (we got enough proof of this) who will convinced you to change your mind. I guess it’s the same for anyone else… At least, I have the convinction to bring in public a personal perspective about the Shroud that is somewhat different than what many people believe and that tells me that it’s not completely a waste of time.
Back in 1978 people could think the image was a painting and seen as the closest to the mark.
STURP results have ruled out this hypothesis.
I don’t know to which mark Charles Freeman’s hypothesis comes close, but it’s definitely in the trash bin for years. Oh yeah, the pigments have been magically removed… don’t fool around.
What is very interesting is the fact that the first scientists who analysed the Shroud (both blood and image) from pictures of it (like Barbet, Vignon, Delage, etc.) came to the conclusions that the blood must be blood and that the image was probably produced by a natural interraction between the Shroud man’s corpse and the cloth. And what is very telling is the fact that, much later on, STURP direct study (along with personal studies made by Adler and Rogers, among others) were able to confirmed without any reasonable doubts their conclusion versus the blood and almost confirmed their conclusion versus the image formation…
I have no time for Charles’ theory. The image is very clearly an imprint.
Whether artistic, naturalistic or miraculous.
I’d favour Colin’s theories over Charles any day.
Having said that I still think it’s likely to be authentic.
This sounds odd but…my daughter just took her shoes off after school, and on her socks was a quite Shroud-like imprint image. She had walked in a sandpit today, and where there had been strong contact with the sock and sand there was an imprint created by the contact between sock and sand, but no imprint image where there had been no or limited contact between foot and sand.
My argument depends on looking closely at the many depictions and descriptions of the Shroud- see especially Beldon Scott and the catalogue of the Savoy collection of images (1998).You can see that the images were much stronger then and had features now lost like the Crown of Thorns and long hair at the back. Many of them have thumbs and these seem to be at the same angle suggesting that they were once there.
We need a database of all these images, not only the engravings and frescoes ( e.g. the one in the Vatican of 1583), but also the cloth images so that scholars can study them online as they can now study Shroudscope.
I believe hat it was crucial for the display of the Shroud that the images could be seen from afar off and, following some recent research on this it is clear that painted images were often repainted as they disintegrated very quickly. This may explain some of the variations in the position of the legs but until we have experts assessing the database we shall not be able to come to any conclusions on this. The painting on, following the Trent decree,and the subsequent disintegration of, the loincloth does seem to fit the evidence and could explain the lighter patch on the buttocks.
The final disintegration of the images and gesso, which were placed just on the very outer surface of a linen cloth, seems to have taken place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries- the 1868 lithograph that Beldon Scott shows is the first one showing that the Shroud had to be framed and one of the images has deteriorated from the shoulders down. Anyone have access to the cathedral archives?
By 1898 the images had virtually disappeared.
Whether there are any pigments and gesso left is anyone’s guess after all that has gone on. Things have moved on so much from 1978 that a new examination of the surface of the cloth is urgently needed. The finding of calcium carbonate by STURP is primie facie evidence of an original gesso but as the STURP tests have never been replicated one should not rest too much on this.
If the Shroud is not examined again, it is probable that examination of other images on medieval linen cloths which have lost their pigments will back or refute my hypothesis that this is linen discoloured by centuries of being overlaid by gesso and paint, the variations, which give the three-d negative effects, reflecting the original thickness of the pigments.
So I am keeping my eyes open on the research on painted linens which is now a growing area of interest.i hope something of importance should turn up which will throw light on the Shroud.
Blood- well, again the tests need replicating but there was so much relic blood around in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries -see Carline Walker Bynum’s book Wonderful Blood – that the incentives for adding it to make money must have been powerful. The redness of the existing stains seems to offer insuperable problems but perhaps someone can come up with a forensic expert who can provide examples.
I don’t expect any of these issue to be resolved one way or the other quickly so it is a waiting game. Scientific research is moving on so fast and it is good that painted linens are a focus so one can be optimistic. After all no one was expecting the BM to solve the dating of the Horses of St.Mark’s so conclusively by finding other dated examples of the same techniques of casting and gilding.
Well, I am only suggesting further research and I think it is clear from what I wrote earlier, that I know in what direction I would like that research to take. The Shroud clearly does not play as much a part in my life as it does for some contributors. If Jesus existed there is always the possibility that something from his life survive, yet it is unlikely because early Christians did not collect relics any more than Protestants do today. I simply don’t see the evidence that takes the Shroud of Turin back into the first century-in fact back even beyond AD 1000.
I feel that much of the research already done has been inadequate, especially in so far as it assumes that the Shroud now is as it has always been, but with so much new work being done on medieval painted linens something may well come up to help us.
More incorrect unsubstantiated dogmatic claims to suit a peculiar world view!
“… it is unlikely because early Christians did not collect relics any more than Protestants do today.” The practice of relic collection among early Christians cannot be known with certainty, as persecutions resulted in any such practices being kept secret until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD granting toleration and making such secrecy no longer necessary. Much of the early church was Hellenist or Syriac and would not have had the same traditional aversion to cultic objects as Jewish Christians.
Until about 380 AD in Rome, Christian burials were in the catacombs. These are decorated with early Christian art works from earlier centuries. The catacombs of Commodilla include the earliest known portrayal of a bearded Christ. The present compulsory liturgical practice of an altar stone containing holy relics, dates from the times of using the tombs of the martyrs as a type of altar to celebrate secretly the liturgy of the Eucharist there.
Not long after 326 AD St Helena made her pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and it is evident that early writers saw it as a recovery of the primitive relics of Christianity. They were put to the practical use of lending a type of “heavenly mandate” to the Byzantine imperial dynasty, Constantine putting one of the crucifixion nails into his helmet, and making a bridle for his horse out of another, clearly as talismans.
The various tales concerning the Image of Edessa and the Image of Camuliana testify to an interest in cloths deemed to have had contact with Christ and leaving an image, some said to be made not by human hands, much of this interest dating from well before the sixth century. There are references to the burial cloths in various other early writings, including the Gospel to the Hebrews, apocryphal and pseud-epigrapha, as well as other testimonies.
There could have been no iconoclastic movement without at least an underlying folk interest in such holy objects.
If it is considered so important as to twist the facts of history in order to sustain one’s specious and worthless hypothesis, they should at least be chosen so as not to be so easily rebutted!
So Daveb – are you for or against research on medieval painted linens? Or is your mind made up for all time- I know mine isn’t- I am just working on the evidence that we have so far.
No problems with relic worship after 320s even if the rights and wrongs were still being debated in the 380s. But three hundred years is a long gap. It would not be easy today to find relics of an event that took place in 1715.
Read the opening chapters of my Holy Bones which deals with the issues and debates over relics in detail.
Anything that can add to certain knowledge is always a good thing. Research on medieval painted linens is fraught with the problem that few survivors, if any, are known to exist. One is then left with any descriptions that various writers may have described. I don’t think that’s what you have in mind. Its relevance to Shroud research I see as dubious, and if any examples happen to be found I think it quite likely to be of negative value to your hypothesis rather than affirmative.
I thought I had made it sufficiently clear, that despite the prevailing disciplina arcana in the first few centuries, that there was sufficient suggestive evidence of an interest in relics and other holy objects. I expect you would be professionally aware of catacombs art. Following the Edict of MIlan, a number of the remains of significant martyrs were recovered from the catacombs and given tombs in cathedrals.
For what it’s worth, a wiki web-site makes interesting reading:
There are several other similar such web-sites on the catacombs.
The original of the Doctrine of Addai, and subsequent redactions with its alleged imprint of Jesus, dates from about 200 AD. Markwardt makes some interesting comments on the enigmatic Inscription of Abercius, which may be interpreted as a journey for the baptism of the court of Abgar VIII. From the inscription one might adduce that Abercius may have had temporary custody of the Shroud for this purpose. The contemporary Bardesanic Hymn of the Pearl may also be significant and relevant.
I also mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, said to be 2nd century, which also expresses an interest in the burial cloths, together with other writings.
I think there is a lot of work in the field of ATR-FTIR controls on paintings.
I believe you have to show us the results obtained from the controls on painted linens (…with ageing treatement and not).
Here some example:
1 – “Progress in the application of ATR-FTIR microscopy to the study of multi-layered cross-sections from works of art”
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
September 2008, Volume 392, Issue 1-2, pp 47-55 Date: 18 Apr 2008
>As a non-invasive or micro-invasive technique attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic (ATR-FTIR) microscopy is a valuable tool for the analysis of materials in works of art. An application for which it has received growing interest is in the analysis of paint cross-sections. However, FTIR microscope configurations, objectives’ geometries and low spatial resolutions, and issues of sample preparation have often hampered the characterization of individual layers or features in cross-sections. With the use of case studies, it is demonstrated here that an ATR-FTIR microscope featuring a crystal of optimized geometry and a viewing capability feature allows characterization of individual layers, or areas within layers, of 10 μm thickness or less in single measurements. Of particular value is a remote aperturing feature which allows the analysis of selected areas within the contact footprint of the ATR crystal. Since the technique is non-destructive, the same area can be analyzed by complementary microscopic techniques such as Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy. Pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was also used in some cases to corroborate the spectroscopic data. The analyses presented provided data which were important in informing art historical interpretation and conservation of the artworks examined
2- ATR-FTIR imaging for the analysis of organic materials in paint cross sections: case studies on paint samples from the National Gallery, London
Marika Spring, Camilla Ricci, David A. Peggie, Sergei G. Kazarian
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
September 2008, Volume 392, Issue 1-2, pp 37-45 Date: 25 Apr 2008
>The potential of attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) imaging for the characterisation of the chemical components of paint cross sections from old master paintings was investigated.
>Three cross sections were chosen to cover a variety of the analytical problems encountered in samples from paintings.
>The binding medium and degradation products in a green paint sample from a fifteenth-century Florentine painting were imaged, as well as a thin layer within a cross-section from a fifteenth-century German painting, and multiple thin surface coatings on a painting of the 1760s by Peter Romney.
>The application of chemometric methods for further analysis of the large data set generated for each sample was also explored.
>The study demonstrated the advantages of ATR-FTIR imaging, which allowed images to be obtained with high spatial resolution (ca. 3–4 μm) without the need to microtome the sample.
>The gain in sensitivity in detecting trace materials and the information derived from the location of these compounds in the sample was especially valuable, improving interpretation of the FTIR analysis and extending knowledge of the sample composition beyond that obtainable with other analytical techniques.
I think Paulette would have to say what she really meant. But since I said I somewhat agreed with her, let me say what I think she meant. Freeman missed the target completely. Not the bull’s, eye but the whole damn target. Country mile is a way of expressing that. That means every hypothesis misses the target completely, in her view.
I, (and I’m talking about me, now), have not seen one proposal from Vignon to Jackson to Fanti to Berry to Freeman to Garlaschelli to Rogers or to anyone that I feel is the least bit viable. I could be wrong but I have not seen anything that impresses me.
It is the old argument between two men as to whose wife is a little bit more pregnant. We are not playing horseshoes here. No one is pregnant. No one is even a little bit pregnant.
No image hypothesis is even a little bit pregnant.
No hypothesis is close enough to be closer to being right.
Did I get it right, Paulette? If I did, I agree.
Dan, you wrote: “I could be wrong but I have not seen anything that impresses me (as far as TS image formation process is concerned).”
In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s burial winding sheet, my theory may be not impressive (the TS image is neither a fraud nor a miracle) yet most likely it is right per se (and you are wrong). Not to mention pre-washing out of the blood (through wearing a woollen tunic in conjunction with heavy sweating on his way to the cross + a pre-burial linen napkin or sudarium placed over his head to soak up and keep his blood oozing from his nose and mouth on the cross and on the way to the tomb) nor the Gospel accounts of Yeshua’s burial (in terms of winding, compressing and fastening his body in shrouds), my theory can account for what precisely other theories have totally failed to do so far namely:
– body imprint/image superficiality and blood appearing too reddish in terms of light or pre-mordant joining with the linen fibers and the gelatinized starch (as ultra fine printing paste/medium) to set the straw yellow colour (as thin layer of carbohydrate impurities that makes up the body image) permanently and along with the freshly dried blood (remoistened with aqueous alkaline solution) to set the carmin red colour through myrrhic-woodaloetic fumigation/burning and exposure to carbon monoxide liberated along with smoke in the course of a specific Judean ritual. Reminders: (light) mordant is known to be used for intensifying stains e.g. in cell or tissue preparations. Low temperature (55°-85° C) alkali gelatinisation of residual starch present in the ancient linen cloth could account for potassium giving only a weak signal in Shroud bloodstains while hydroxyproline (a marker for collagen) giving strong signal. Now it is well known gelatine is a breakdown product of collagen.
– collimation in terms of self collimated light mordancing extended to the back and front of the stiff rigid corpse of the crucifixion victim’s bloodied body (the crucifixion victim’s ‘smooth wet and dust-covered textile skin’ –or ‘second skin’ aka his aqueous alkali solution in-soaked inner winding burial sheet now known as the Turin Shroud–, tightly moulded over his dust-lactic acid residues-blood covered body, acting as an image enhancing membrane for accurately aligning (collimating) compressible and decompressible vapour flow and orthogonally moving in terms of body-to-cloth gradual shrinking and unsticking front and back by means of the said flow as a thermal actuator)
– 3D volumetric recording of the crests and valleys of the bloodied body (the clean sindon/himation being used as a long narrow inner winding burial sheet in-soaked with an aqueous alkali solution) was first tautly wrapped lengthwise around the stiff rigid bloodied body from head to toe and then manually compressed widthwise in shorter dry clean outer shrouds to be subjected to a (myrrhic?) xyloaloetic fumigation and then the inner burial winding sheet slightly decompressed while sort of getting taut again through drying and shrinking). Reminder: whether it be 3D printing of a crucifixion victim body between two sheets of linen cloth or small sprigs of fresh herbs, the fresh individual flowers and/or freshly caught fishes between two sheets of (blotting) paper, such a process requires moulding by either manually rubbing, pressing or compressing crests and valleys between the said sheets
– neatness and tidiness (or integrity) of blood clots (through a cloth-to-body skin sticking and gradual unsticking process)
…just to name a few.
Note: (Red Heifer) ashes and (Jerusalem) limestone dust mixed with warm/hot (55°-85° Celsius) water can gelatinized starch.
Typo: tightly moulded over his dust-lactic and uric acid residues-blood covered body
Methinks Paulette’s “hit-and-run hypercriticism” just means she’s not bold enough to advocate let alone really subtantiate her hypercriticism.
Could Paulette seriously tell us what is, according to her, the main sindonological “target” and “bull’s eye” to hit?
What I want to underline again is the need of the experimental evidence.
Here I want to turn for a moment in a boring guy… because I have seen
that ATR-FTR analyses don’t seem to affect much.
Then … there is a famous example about the “scientific prevision” that can be useful to remember…
The data for light deflection observed during the eclipse (of the Sun) of 1919
were coming from two groups of measurements:
one at Sobral (Brasil) and the other in the Prince’s Island. The first case furnished the following value = 1”, 98 + 0”,30 and the second indicated 1”,61+0”,30.
But in 1923 William Wallace Campbell and Robert Julius Trurmper , published an article where the prevision of General Relativity (by Einstein) about stellar light deflection due to the mass of Sun were compared with a group of measurements taken during a total eclipse of Sun that happened in September 21, 1922.
The theretical value foreseen by General Relativity was 1″,745, instead the experimental mean value found was equal to 1″,72 +/- 0″,11. Then the comparison turned to be a strong confirmation for the theorical value.
Here few other lines (History of Science): early calculations done by EInstein in 1911 indicated a deflection value of 0″,87 (in 1911, Einstein wrote: “A ray of light going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflexion to an amount of 4×10-6 = 0.83 seconds of arc.”), then a value near identical of that indicated in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner (1776-1833), a scientist who remained in the field of the Newton’s theory and also hypothesized that light was an heavy body subject to the diffusion from the solar mass.
But in 1915 the newtonian idea was replaced by arguments based on space’s curvature and the estimation flowed into a value twice (= 1″,74) with respect the previous data .
Unfortunately in 1914 and in 1916 there was the war period and in 1918 an attempt achieved by american researchers did not produced a sufficient amount of data …
That is: at the end we must remember the famous phrase… “Carthago delenda est” !…
Please, read the similar words under the paragraph: “Deflection of light by the Sun”:
>… The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse, so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa. The result was considered spectacular news and made the front page of most major newspapers. It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world-famous. When asked by his assistant what his reaction would have been if general relativity had not been confirmed by Eddington and Dyson in 1919, Einstein famously made the quip: “Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway.” . …
… and then now my hands are almost burning for impatience!
But I have found another link:
Where we can read the following words:
>In “Weird but True” Jamal Munshi reports: “Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled “The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem,” and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
>So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world’s greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein’s general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members [Eddington] was close to being declared a “conscientious objector”. … …
So we should conclude that a certain amount of tricks seems to be necessary to work with succeed in the field of Science…
and the claim of that webpage is that they
(= P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada) have shown “that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.” !!!
and I have found another webpage, by V.N. Strel’tsov [Dubna, Russia]
( Link: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/articles/3-5/Strel-light.htm ),
that reinforce these strange claims …
Here the last words :
>… a gravitational field does not influence on a light ray.
Here another source:
>… modern experiments show that the reduction in velocity of light due to gravity is actually logarithmic (1/ln(D)). …
We have to be careful in our observations and experiments!
What is your opinion ?
Reading the book by Lisa Randall:
“Knocking On Heaven’s Door:
How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate our Universe”
you can see what was the gift (to Lisa Randall)
by Massimilla Baldo-Ceolin, a professor at the University of Padua…
a commemorative medal with the words by Galileo:
“Io stimo più il trovar un vero, benché di cosa leggiera,
che ‘l disputar lungamente delle massime questioni
senza conseguir verità nissuna.”
Here a rough translation =
I esteem (= respect) more find a true, although to a light thing,
rather than disputing the maximum length issues
without obtaining no truth.
— — —
Do you want to improve this attempt?
I think you can try to do something (perhaps)
starting from the following link:
— — —
Here another extremely vague suggestion (about Galileo
and his time, his era full of changes..), the book:
“Galileo’s Idol: Gianfrancesco Sagredo and the Politics of Knowledge”
by Nick Wilding
University of Chicago Press (Nov. 27, 2014)
>Galileo’s Idol offers a vivid depiction of Galileo’s friend, student, and patron, Gianfrancesco Sagredo (1571–1620).
>Sagredo’s life, which has never before been studied in depth, brings to light the inextricable relationship between the production, distribution, and reception of political information and scientific knowledge. …
>… Through his analysis of the figure of Sagredo,
Wilding offers a fresh perspective on Galileo
as well as new questions and techniques for the study of science. … …
And the last problem to solve is the following:
Can a patent examiner change the entire World of Physics?
Is it possible to capture the essence of genius?
Is it possible to find the true solution of a 2000 years old Enigma
proceeding by trial-and-error method?
Where is the true solving proof for that bimillennial old Enigma?
— — —
History Today: at present I see only another big Fire
(after that of Turin, 1997) … it happened in Nantes (France)…
>…The blaze broke out on Monday after morning Mass, with worshippers evacuated from the building, Rev Benoit Bertrand told local media.
>Around 40 firefighters worked to extinguish the flames, which are believed to have originated on the roof where work was being carried out. …
Comments are closed.