Interesting and Humour - page 3812
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
So, like the lack of calibration material.
Decipher
Andrew planted an article, even I didn't know:
Probably the most famous isthe Shroud of Turin. It is widely known that dating was done on accelerator mass spectrometers in three well-known laboratories (Oxford, Zurich and Tucson),which obtained similar results:with 95% probability, the shroud material was made in the range of 1260 to 1390. Much less known, in addition to the shroud samples, the laboratories analyzed three other tissue samples (Louis IX cloak, made between 1240 and 1270, a shroud from an Egyptian burial, woven around 1100, and the cloth that wrapped the Egyptian mummy, dating from around 200 years). In all three cases, the dates obtained in the laboratories matched the original data.
Decipher
The article even highlights for you: "All of these instruments require fairly large samples, which naturally narrows the range of materials available for dating."
и
"In all three cases, the dating obtained in the laboratories matched the original data."
The article even highlights for you: "All of these instruments require fairly large samples, which naturally narrows the range of materials available for dating."
и
"In all three cases, the dating obtained in the laboratories matched the original data."
If the shroud sample was taken for analysis by THREE laboratories and gave a conclusion, it means that the sample sizes met the requirements of the equipment.
It is a question of the characteristics of the equipment and methodology, not a specific analysis
If a shroud sample was taken for analysis by THREE laboratories and given an opinion, it means that the sample sizes met the requirements of the equipment.
This is a question of equipment characteristics and methodology, not a specific analysis
Reread this paragraph: How much improvement has this method made since it was introduced?
In order to measure anything, the instrument has to be calibrated to a valid sample.
Re-read this paragraph: How much improvement has this method made since it was introduced?
In order to measure anything, the instrument has to be calibrated to a valid sample.
What reason is there to believe that ALL THREE instruments in the world's three leading LABORATORS were uncalibrated?
Andrew planted an article, even I didn't know:
Probably the most famous isthe Shroud of Turin. It is widely known that dating was done on accelerator mass spectrometers in three well-known laboratories (Oxford, Zurich and Tucson),which obtained similar results:with 95% probability, the shroud material was made in the range of 1260 to 1390. Much less known, in addition to the shroud samples, the laboratories analyzed three other tissue samples (Louis IX cloak, made between 1240 and 1270, a shroud from an Egyptian burial, woven around 1100, and the cloth that wrapped the Egyptian mummy, dating from around 200 years). In all three cases, the dates obtained in the laboratories coincided with the original data.
The impurities in the material under study are of fundamental importance in dating. When I wrote that "it matters how it was stored", for example there was material in and around the ground of the same date. Even in this case impurities play a big role.
In the case of the shroud it is an unprecedented case for carbon dating, as the organic material was boiled in another organic material. Is the carbon method applicable in this particular case? In the studies you mentioned this question was not raised. I did cite a study which first posed the question of the applicability of the method, and then gave the answer: with appropriate calibration adjustments (calibration is a necessary element of the method) around the time of Christ
At this point, the closest thing to the truth about the shroud was expressed byEnea: we don't know anything, we don't even know how to approach it.
PS.
I once saw a suggestion about the way the image was made. Based on an analogy: the image on the shroud looks like the shadows of people from the atomic bombing in Japan. The impression is that there was an extremely powerful, but cold, flash of light from inside the shroud, which gave the shadows on the cloth. This is the only way to explain the geometry of the display, like a circular panorama.
What reason is there to believe that ALL THREE PRINCIPLES IN THE WORLD'S LEADING LABORATORS were uncalibrated?
This is not cooking - boiling, frying and stewing do not change the carbon isotope composition. And the first procedure of analysis is to clean the sample of impurities.
P.S. It's the only way they've ever tried
What reason is there to believe that ALL THREE PRINCIPLES IN THE WORLD'S LEADING LABORATORS were uncalibrated?
Blind faith in science is certainly as admirable as faith in religion.
Just figure out how it works.