Hypothesis to Explain the Main Mysteries of the Shroud of Turin
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 08. 2024
- Ancient tradition claims the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This claim is supported by the full-size front and dorsal (back) images on the Shroud of a man that was crucified exactly as the New Testament says Jesus was crucified. In 1978, experiments on the Shroud by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) indicated the images are not due to pigment, any liquid, a scorch, or photography. The three main mysteries of the Shroud of Turin are: 1) how the images were formed, 2) how to explain the carbon dating of the Shroud, and 3) why the blood that would have dried on the body is now on the Shroud. The vertically collimated radiation burst (VCRB) hypothesis proposes that: 1) the images were formed when charged particles in the radiation burst caused a static discharge from the top fibers facing the body, which caused electrical heating and/or ozone to discolor the fibers that form the front and dorsal images, 2) neutrons in the radiation burst were absorbed in the trace amount of N-14 in the Shroud to produce new C-14 in the fibers that shifted the carbon date forward from its true date, and 3) if the vertically collimated radiation burst were sufficiently brief and intense, it could have thrust the dried blood vertically off the body onto the Shroud. This video is made by Bob Rucker. He has an MS degree in nuclear engineering and worked in the nuclear industry for 38 years. He has been studying the Shroud since 2014 and has written 32 papers on the Shroud, as of April 2022, that are available on the research page of his website www.shroudresearch.net.
A viewer of this video sent me the following comment: “Your video is awesome. Best explanation yet. God bless you and your family. D.R.”
A viewer of the video asked this question: How were the samples cleaned prior to the carbon dating? Wouldn’t any amount of contamination help to explain the carbon date to 1260-1390?
In 1988, four samples for carbon dating were cut next to each other from the corner of the Shroud off the feet of the front image. The carbon dating laboratories in Oxford and Zurich received one sample each, and the laboratory in Tucson received two samples, though these two samples weighed about as much as each of the other samples. The smaller of the two samples sent to Tucson was not carbon dated but was placed into a vault where it is to this day. Each of the laboratories cut their sample to be dated into subsamples, producing 16 subsamples that were dated, though Tucson averaged pairs of subsample dates thus reducing the number of reported dates to 12. The process for doing the carbon dating was reported in the journal Nature in 1989 in a paper titled “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin” by P.E. Damon plus 20 others. You can find details of the various ways the subsamples were cleaned in this paper. This paper is available at shroud.com/nature.htm.
The most conservative case is if all the contamination occurred in 1988, when the carbon dating was performed. Even under this most conservative assumption, approximately 63% of the carbon in the sample would have to come from the contamination and only 37% from the original fabric to produce a mixture (original fabric + contamination) that would carbon date to 1260 AD. It is inconceivable that the carbon in the sample could be 63% from contamination after the sample was cleaned, and that this amount of contamination could not be seen in a modern microscope. This amount of contamination could probably be seen with the unaided eye. If the contamination occurred earlier than 1988, then a larger fraction of the carbon in the sample would have to come from the contamination. If the contamination occurred in 1260, then the entire sample must be contamination with no original fabric at all. If the contamination occurred earlier than 1260, a carbon date of 1260 could not be obtained for the mixture of contamination and original fabric, except by measurement errors and uncertainties.
A viewer of the video asked this question: Did Jesus unwrap himself and step out of his burial cloth?
I believe that according to the Biblical text, his body disappeared from within his burial cloth. This explains why John believed in Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:8. He saw the body cloth collapsed after the body disappeared probably with various smaller cloths still tied around the body at the feet, to hold the arms down, to hold the jaw up, etc. It was probably John that did the burial because he was the only apostle at the foot of the cross during Jesus’ crucifixion, so he would have recognized that the collapsed body cloth indicated that Jesus’ body disappeared from within his body cloth, thus indicating his resurrection.
Did the body cease to exist when it disappeared from within the body cloth? No! Where then did it go? In layman terms, the body went to heaven. In physics terms, the body made a transition to an alternate dimensionality. For a further explanation of this concept, see my paper 7 on the research page of my website www.shroudresearch.net titled “Mr. Dotman in Lineland”.
Another reason for rejecting Garza-Valdes’ bioplastic-coating hypothesis for explaining the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud is the extreme cleaning of the samples before they were carbon dated. These extreme cleaning methods often left less than half of the original sample weight.
A viewer of the video asked this question: I have heard some say that the body was hovering between the section of the Shroud that was above the body and the section of the Shroud that was below the body. What do you think?
If the Shroud was wrapped around his head when the front image was encoded onto it, then when the cloth was unwrapped, the image of the face would have been much wider than is on the Shroud. The fact that the image of the face is a normal width indicates that in some way the cloth was elevated above the body when the encoding event happened. Two possibilities have been suggested. Perhaps there were bags of flowers placed on both sides of his head which elevated the cloth, or electrostatic effects might, in some way, have elevated the top cloth and possibly elevated the body above the cloth below him. I think the second option is better because in my image formation hypothesis we are dealing with electrostatic effects.
A viewer of the video asked this question: When you talk about vertically collimated radiation from the body, are you talking about laser light, and can you reproduce the image using laser light emitted from within a human body?
Laser light is electromagnetic radiation, either in the infrared, visible, or ultraviolet energy range. Photons of electromagnetic radiation have no mass so are not called particles. Charged particles and neutrons have mass so are called particles. My radiation burst hypothesis proposes that vertically collimated charged particles in the radiation burst caused the image, neutrons in the radiation burst shifted the carbon date, and momentum of the charged particles and neutrons thrust the blood off the body onto the cloth. I know of no evidence that requires or prohibits the presence of electromagnetic radiation such as laser light in the radiation burst.
The best image of the face was produced using a femtosecond (extremely short duration) infrared laser controlled by information: “2D Reproduction of the Face on the Turin Shroud by Infrared Femtosecond Pulse Laser Processing” by C. Donnet, et al. But I doubt the microscopic effects of this process were consistent with the evidence on the Shroud because they were not discussed in the paper. I could not think of any way that electromagnetic radiation could produce the microscopic evidence on the Shroud but charged particles could naturally produce a static discharge from the top fibers facing the body, which could naturally produce electrical heating and/or ozone to discolor the fibers as they are discolored in the images. A simulation of charged particles emitted from within a human body to produce an image on cloth would have to be done using computer software.
A viewer of the video asked this question: Could the carbon dating to the Middle-Ages be due to a bioplastic coating produced on the Shroud by micro-organisms?
There have been several attempts to explain why the corner of the Shroud was carbon dated to 1260-1390, in approximate historical sequence: Tom Phillips’ neutron absorption hypothesis in 1989, contamination due to handling, something such as wax or talc intentionally placed onto the corner area, heat or smoke from the fire in 1532 that the Shroud was in, Garza-Valdes’ bioplastic film hypothesis, Joe Marino’s invisible reweave hypothesis, and John Jackson’s carbon monoxide hypothesis. The invisible reweave hypothesis is usually held and promoted in the media though I believe it is probably not true for several reasons (see chapter 9 of “Test the Shroud” by Mark Antonacci). The neutron absorption hypothesis was not further investigated after 1989 until I performed nuclear analysis computer calculations on this hypothesis in 2014, which convinced me that it is true. All the other options, including Garza-Valdes’ bioplastic film hypothesis, have been investigated and generally rejected. My reasons for rejecting the bioplastic film hypothesis are as follows:
1. If bacteria could form a sufficient bioplastic film on fabric to shift the carbon date for the Shroud, then the carbon date for most if not all other fabrics should have been shifted as well.
2. Careful microscopic examination has not found a significant thickness of any film on the Shroud’s fibers.
3. Bacteria continuously forming a bioplastic film on the fibers between 33 AD and 1988 could not shift the carbon date from 33 AD to 1260. Even if the sample were 100% bioplastic film, it would only shift the carbon date to approximately the midpoint of 33 to 1988, i.e., to 1010 AD.
4. A bioplastic film deposited uniformly on the Shroud would not explain the slope in the carbon dates (about 91 years per inch) from the three laboratories that performed the carbon dating in 1988. It would also not explain the range and distribution of the 16 subsample dates that were obtained in the 1988 carbon dating. The neutron absorption hypothesis explains both.
5. There is convincing evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is Jesus’ face cloth mentioned in John 20:7. If bacteria had shifted the carbon date for the Shroud from 33 to 1260, it should have also shifted carbon date for the Sudarium from 33 to 1260, but the Sudarium was carbon dated to about 670 AD. The bioplastic film hypothesis does not explain this, but the neutron absorption hypothesis does, based on the Sudarium being placed away from the body which was the source of the neutrons.
Thus, my conclusion is that Garza-Valdes’ bioplastic film hypothesis should be rejected, and the neutron absorption hypothesis should be accepted as the best hypothesis to explain why the corner of the Shroud carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD.
Bob Rucker
A viewer of the video asked this question: Many believe that the images on the Shroud were caused by a Maillard reaction. Why do you believe this is not true?
I am a nuclear engineer and not a chemist, but I will do my best to answer this question within the time I have available. I offer the following reasons below in a logical order and not in order of importance. I suspect that further consideration of the chemistry of a Maillard reaction would probably produce additional reasons to reject it.
1. The Maillard reaction is a natural chemical reaction and is very common. For example, it is responsible for the brownish color on toast and french-fries. It is often promoted by those that want to explain the images on the Shroud using only a natural process that is common to our experience. I would like to point out that if the images on the Shroud were due to a common natural process, then we should have many examples of a human body that formed an image of itself on cloth. However, the Shroud is the only example of a body that formed an image of itself on fabric, which argues for a unique process that could be beyond or outside our current understanding of the laws of physics.
2. Three things are necessary to form the images on the Shroud: 1) a mechanism to discolor the fibers, 2) energy to drive the discoloration mechanism, and 3) information to control the discoloration mechanism so that the correct fibers are discolored and the discoloration on each image fiber is of the correct length to form the front and dorsal images of a crucified man on the Shroud. Requirement 1 is satisfied because the Maillard reaction is the proposed mechanism to discolor the fibers. Requirement 2 does not appear to be satisfied because a rapid Maillard reaction requires a heat source to drive it, and the body wrapped in the Shroud does not provide such a heat source. For example, it is a Maillard reaction that causes bread or French fries to brown in an oven, but the oven provides the heat source. This heat in the oven provides the energy needed to produce a rapid Maillard reaction in the baking process. Wikipedia also describes a slow Maillard reaction as in the browning of skin of a dead body buried in a peat bog, but this is a very slow process requiring many years. No body decay products were discovered on the Shroud, so the body was wrapped in the Shroud for less than about 48 hours. This means that a rapid Maillard reaction would be required, so that a heat source would be required, but none is available. Requirement 3 is apparently also not satisfied. The 3D information that is encoded into the images on the Shroud is the information that specifies the vertical distance between the body and the cloth at each point. I know of no attempt to explain how a Maillard reaction could accurately convey this detailed information to the cloth.
3. The information required to control the discoloration mechanism must be deposited on the cloth in a focused manner to produce the good resolution images of a crucified man on the cloth. The Maillard reaction that has been proposed to form the images involves diffusion of molecules from the body to the cloth. Diffusion of molecules is a random process with the atoms randomly scattering off each other in random directions.. It is difficult to imagine how such a random process could result in the focused information being deposited on the cloth that is required to form the images.
4. It is difficult to imagine how the random diffusion of molecules could go vertically upward to deposit the focused information on the cloth above the body to form the front image, and at the same time go vertically downward to deposit the focused information on the cloth below the body to form the dorsal image, while not going at any angle between vertically upward and vertically downward to form an image of the sides of the body or the top of the head.
5. The extreme superficiality of the fiber discoloration argues against the Maillard reaction. Only the top one or two (possibly three) layers of fibers in the top threads facing the body are discolored. These flax fibers are about one-fifth the diameter of a human hair, i.e., about 15 to 20 micrometers or microns in diameter. The discoloration in an image fiber is only in a very thin region around the outer circumference of the fiber. This discolored region is less than 0.2 micrometers thick, so only about the outer 2% of the radius of a fiber is discolored, with the inside of the fiber not discolored. It is hard to imagine how a Maillard reaction could be capable of producing such a thin discoloration, and it has not been experimentally proven to be possible. The browned outer layer of bread or French fries after baking would be much thicker than the discoloration on the image fibers on the Shroud.
6. The discoloration in the image has a mottled appearance, with the discolored fibers being grouped together and non-discolored areas between the groups of discolored fibers. A Maillard reaction should produce a uniform discoloration on the cloth rather than a mottled pattern.
7. Because of the above problems, a Maillard reaction has never been shown to be capable of producing an image on cloth.
Thus, a Maillard reaction is inconsistent with the above evidence from the Shroud whereas the vertically collimated radiation burst (VCRB) hypothesis is consistent with the above evidence, as discussed in the video.