A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SwizzleStick

Guest
Though it has been awhile, I have read a lot about the Shroud of Turin, both books and also data on websites. It is really fascinating and all the facts support that this is, in fact, Jesus Christ’s burial cloth. It is all really interesting, thought-provoking, inspiring data. I’m not sure I entirely understand the article below, but it adds more data to the considerable bank of information that is out there. Fascinating.

"A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection?

Dame Isabel Piczek—a Hungarian trained particle physicist and internationally renowned monumental artist—has apparently uncovered hard, scientific evidence that Jesus Christ did, in fact, rise from the dead.

The object of her study is a simple piece of ancient fabric known as the Shroud of Turin."…

Full article here: khouse.org/articles/2008/847
 
I’m not a native english speaker, so I have some problems to understand the second half of this article. Could maybe someone on the forums describe in simple words what it says and especially what - according to the article - the shroud of turin has to do with the creation of the universe? Thankyou.

Chrissi
 
ChrissiM said:
…Could maybe someone on the forums describe in simple words what it says and especially what - according to the article - the shroud of turin has to do with the creation of the universe?..
Click to expand...
I had trouble understanding that as well, so I do hope someone informs us both.🙂
 
Well, I’m sitting here trapped by my cat, so I’ll give it a whirl.

Time began with the Big Bang, which created the universe. The Big Bang was an event horizon: for all practical purposes nothing existed before the Big Bang. There was nothing, then suddenly BIG BANG there is something.

The Big Bang is also a quantum event. Think of a quantum as the union of energy and matter. Neither energy nor matter existed before the Big Bang; now they do exist. In this universe, quanta exist and follow certain known laws called quantum mechanics.

In our universe, the closest we come to the original Big Bang are black holes. Black holes form when enough matter is compressed into a small enough space that the resulting force of gravity pulls space into itself. Like the Big Bang, it’s an event horizon: when something enters the event horizon of a black hole, there is no way of knowing what happens to it. The quanta – the union of matter and energy – exist on one side of the event horizon; when they cross over they don’t exist. Not only that, but the laws that govern quanta change as the quanta approach the event horizon. For various reasons this includes quantum time – as a quantum approaches the event horizon quantum time slows down; at the event horizon quantum time effectively stops.

The difference between the Big Bang and a black hole is that the black hole event horizon is created by the force of gravity, while the Big Bang event horizon wasn’t created by gravity (or anything else we can figure out – it just happened). It takes a great amount of gravity to create a black-hole-kind of event horizon, and we would be able to measure or at least observe the effects of the gravity waves. We can’t measure or observe any kind of gravity waves from the Big Bang.

We know from previous experiments that the image on the Shroud is similar to a flash burn that only affects the top microfibers of the Shroud. If you think of your arm as a thread, the hair on your arms are microfibers on the thread. It means there was an enormous amount of energy released in an infinitesimally small amount of time. Dame Pizcek is saying that this energy was created when two event horizons approached the body in the Shroud, lifting both the body and the Shroud from where they were laying, and then approached each other and connected, destroying each other. The thing about the event horizons is that they weren’t like the black hole event horizons. They were like the Big Bang event horizons, because there’s no evidence of any gravity waves.

At least, that’s what I think they’re saying… 😃
 
In other words, the image on the Shroud may have been essentially created by Christ’s resurrection.
 
Though the idea that the carbon dating testing was flawed is not a new one, here is another current article on the Shroud:

"Turin Shroud ‘could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed’
New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud could have been the cloth in which Jesus was buried, as experiments that concluded it was a medieval fake were flawed.

Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).

At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.

But in a video made shortly before his death three years ago, he said facts had come to light that indicated the shroud could be genuine.:…

Full article here: telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html
 
From the article linked in post #1:

“In 2004, Dame Piczek became fascinated by the total absence of distortion of the Shroud image, a physical impossibility if the body had been lying on solid rock. Piczek’s work strongly suggests that the image of Jesus was projected as a quantum hologram onto the cloth as His body underwent the process of Resurrection.”
 
Personally, I believe it is Jesus.

I could lay down with a blanket around me for 3 days and my image would not be there… let alone for 2 thousand years.
 
For anyone interested in the Shroud, Ian Wilson’s first book on the subject is a good introduction, giving the history of the Shroud as well as evidence relating to the possibility that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. That book was entitle “The Shroud of Turin–The Burial Cloth of Christ?”

He wrote a later book entitled “The Blood and the Shroud” but I still think the first book is a prerequisite. There were also several scientists involved in the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) who wrote a detailed account of their studies, but I don’t recall the name of that book.
 
St_Francis said:
Care to back that one up? I mean, you’re not really contributing anything by your statement…
Click to expand...
Okay.
  1. There is no historical record of this Shroud’s existence prior to the 14th century. You’d think there would be if the burial shroud of Jesus Christ had been floating around for over 1,300 years. Instead, we’ve got an alleged burial shroud which popped out of the woodwork in a time period in which hocking “relics” was big business.
  2. It was denounced as a fraud by the Bishop of Troyes in the 14th century who believed it to have been painted. (See number 4)
  3. Radio carbon dating revealed it’s origins to have been sometime between 1260–1390. Some people argue that the sample was merely a patch from the middle ages which could be true. Of course, if the Holy See was really interested in determining the authenticity of the Shroud then it would have allowed additional samples to be taken. It did not and the Bishop of Turin was willing to destroy scientific evidence through restoration.
  4. Testing of fibrils taken from over 30 different locations on the Shroud revealed the presence of middle-age pigment consisting of ferric oxide and vermilion. This study was published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course, the Holy Shroud Guild wouldn’t tolerate any findings which contradicted it’s preconceived notions of the Shroud’s authenticity so the samples were confiscated and Walter McCrone was booted from the project.
  5. Any burial cloth covering Jesus’ body should not depict his face because, according to John 20:6, a separate cloth was used to cover Jesus’ head.
Need I go on?
 
EmperorNapolen is correct that the documented historical record of the shroud goes only to the 14th century. If it existed prior to that time, why was it kept hidden? These are all valid questions, and they are discussed in Ian Wilson’s first book on the subject.

The problem arises in that no process has been discovered which would account for the image. It was certainly not painted. Read the STURP participants results as well as the documentary mentioned in Post #1.

Had the image been able to be accounted for by normal physical means, it’s likely the controversy would have died down by now. Instead, those who have studied the cloth most closely and using scientific methods have become more convinced of its probable authenticity.

Keep in mind that the shroud is not essential to our faith. If it is proved to have originated in the 14th century, fine. But the image–that is the insurmountable problem, which is drawing a great deal of attention.

In any case it’s a fascinating relic. I highly recommend the first Ian Wilson book for some background as well as the writings of the STURP researchers for more information.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Okay.
  1. There is no historical record of this Shroud’s existence prior to the 14th century. You’d think there would be if the burial shroud of Jesus Christ had been floating around for over 1,300 years. Instead, we’ve got an alleged burial shroud which popped out of the woodwork in a time period in which hocking “relics” was big business.
  2. It was denounced as a fraud by the Bishop of Troyes in the 14th century who believed it to have been painted. (See number 4)
  3. Radio carbon dating revealed it’s origins to have been sometime between 1260–1390. Some people argue that the sample was merely a patch from the middle ages which could be true. Of course, if the Holy See was really interested in determining the authenticity of the Shroud then it would have allowed additional samples to be taken. It did not and the Bishop of Turin was willing to destroy scientific evidence through restoration.
  4. Testing of fibrils taken from over 30 different locations on the Shroud revealed the presence of middle-age pigment consisting of ferric oxide and vermilion. This study was published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course, the Holy Shroud Guild wouldn’t tolerate any findings which contradicted it’s preconceived notions of the Shroud’s authenticity so the samples were confiscated and Walter McCrone was booted from the project.
  5. Any burial cloth covering Jesus’ body should not depict his face because, according to John 20:6, a separate cloth was used to cover Jesus’ head.
Need I go on?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was just wondering if anything had turned up. It seems that the evidence is still some supporting the authenticity, and some which would not.

Just a couple of notes: There have been documents which seem to refer to the Shroud earlier than the 1300s, and, St John 20:**7 **does not preclude a shroud over His entire Body and another covering the part of the shroud over His Head.

For those who don’t want to wait to read the book, I found this article which seemed to present a lot of the facts in an unbiased way.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Okay.
  1. There is no historical record of this Shroud’s existence prior to the 14th century. You’d think there would be if the burial shroud of Jesus Christ had been floating around for over 1,300 years. Instead, we’ve got an alleged burial shroud which popped out of the woodwork in a time period in which hocking “relics” was big business.
  2. It was denounced as a fraud by the Bishop of Troyes in the 14th century who believed it to have been painted. (See number 4)
  3. Radio carbon dating revealed it’s origins to have been sometime between 1260–1390. Some people argue that the sample was merely a patch from the middle ages which could be true. Of course, if the Holy See was really interested in determining the authenticity of the Shroud then it would have allowed additional samples to be taken. It did not and the Bishop of Turin was willing to destroy scientific evidence through restoration.
  4. Testing of fibrils taken from over 30 different locations on the Shroud revealed the presence of middle-age pigment consisting of ferric oxide and vermilion. This study was published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course, the Holy Shroud Guild wouldn’t tolerate any findings which contradicted it’s preconceived notions of the Shroud’s authenticity so the samples were confiscated and Walter McCrone was booted from the project.
  5. Any burial cloth covering Jesus’ body should not depict his face because, according to John 20:6, a separate cloth was used to cover Jesus’ head.
Need I go on?
Click to expand...
To the Emperor:

Here are my responses to your points, to whit:
  1. Slight correction: The French knight Robert de Clari told of seeing the Shroud in the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae in Constantinople. An English translation of de Clari done in 1936 by E. H. McNeil stated that Robert was in error; however, more recent translations have shown that McNeil mistranslated the section in question. So there is a sighting in 1204 at a Church in Constantinople, prior to its possession by Geoffrey de Charny around 1356.
  2. You note that the Bishop of Troyes BELIEVED it to have been painted. He never, in fact, ever saw the Shroud in person. His letter (which one person said contained invective that would be later used by **Pravda **and Isvestia) claimed that the Shroud was an **alleged **forgery, painted by an **alleged **artist, who **allegedly **had confessed to painting it. The confession has never been found and the alleged painter never named. Since the Bishop never saw the Shroud and only ALLEGED that it was a forgery without providing any proof, I don’t think we can consider his opinion in determining the truth of the Shroud.
  3. The radiocarbon dating done in 1988 has been shown to be in error. The scientists performing the test violated their own protocols, by a) taking samples from only one section instead of multiple sections, and b) by not confirming the shroud samples through chemical tests before performing the C14 dating. They also made a huge mistake by selecting the portion to be tested without consulting their own previous tests: if they had looked at the photographs taken during the 1978 testing, they would have seen that the location they took the samples from fluoresced at a different color than the rest of the Shroud, and they would have selected another location.
I’m confused what you mean by, “…and the Bishop of Turin was willing to destroy scientific evidence through restoration.” The Bishop did no such thing. The patching had been done in the 1400’s using a technique called “French re-weaving”, making it indistinguishable from the original Shroud – at least to the naked eye. In any case, further C14 testing may not make a difference: as part of the investigation involving the French re-weaving, it was discovered that the reliquary holding the Shroud had been treated with an organic preservative some time earlier. The particular preservative can have the effect of distorting the C14 tests of anything stored in something treated with that preservative. (This is also one reason why the C14 tests have not been repeated.) The best that can be done is to date the deterioration of a particular protein that appears in both cotton (the repaired portion) and flax (the linen of the original). This protein is much less accurate than C14, so the best date they can come up with is something in the range of 1200 AD to 3000 BC.
  1. This is demonstrably incorrect. The only person who claimed to have found pigment made from ferric oxide and vermilion is William McCrone. McCrone’s work was never peer reviewed. (In fact, after the team returned from Turin, McCrone was offered a place on the team to do analysis. He accepted, but later resigned when his papers could not pass the team’s internal peer review.) It was published only in a journal published by his own company, and when given several chances to defend his work against other scientists who did NOT find iron oxide and vermilion, has always backed down. Dr. John H. Heller, who wrote “The Report on the Shroud of Turin” describes in that report the painstaking work done on the fibril samples after the 1978 examination. He and his fellow scientists found that the blood on the Shroud was human blood and not the result of any paint or colorant; that the blood had been applied before the image had been “placed” on the Shroud; and that the only iron oxide (as well as calcium and strontium) present on the shroud was as a result of either the retting process used to make linen or from the fire in 1532 (which was hot enough to melt the silver lining the box storing the Shroud).
  2. Yes, a separate cloth was used to cover Jesus’ head, but it was placed on the OUTSIDE of the Shroud. Jesus’ body was placed on the shroud and covered, then carried to the tomb. The cloth would have been placed on Jesus’ head just before leaving the tomb. As a matter of fact, there is good evidence supporting the Sudarium of Oviedo (Spain) as the cloth covering Jesus’ head. The Sudarium has a blood stain that matches a blood stain on the image of the head on the Shroud, as well as other similarities.
 
I had read this article on the Shroud a few days ago, but then couldn’t remember where I’d read it so I could post it in this thread. But, with some searching, I managed to find it again.
"Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican

Medieval knights hid and secretly venerated The Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican said yesterday in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic’s missing years.

The Knights Templar, an order which was suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a man with a beard, long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to Vatican researchers.

The Shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral, has long been revered as the shroud in which Jesus was buried, although the image only appeared clearly in 1898 when a photographer developed a negative."…

Full article here: timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6040521.ece
 
"Why the Shroud of Turin is not a Fake Relic

Like a playful Georges Seurat painting, the images on the Shroud emerge from discrete little bits of color in all the right places on the cloth. But unlike a cheerful and colorful Seurat, there is only one color in the Shroud’s images. It is a single shade of caramel yellow. And unlike Seurat’s pointillism, the bits of color are microscopically tiny. When we look at the Shroud, what we perceive as different shades of yellow is mere visual blending. Where there are more or larger bits of yellow the image appears darker. Where there is less yellow, the image appears lighter. Pixels, a word that means picture elements, is one way to describe the bits of color. The image on the Shroud is like a halftone photograph printed in a newspaper or a grayscale photograph printed in microscopic-size droplets of black ink on an ink-jet printer.

Very much unlike a Seurat, the image was not painted. Many tests including visible, ultraviolet and infrared light spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and direct microscopic viewing of the Shroud confirm that the images were not painted despite the fact that Walter McCrone, a noted microscopic analyst found iron oxide and mercuric sulfide, both used in paint pigments."…

Full commentary here: shroudstory.com/faq-fakery.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top