Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

[JayUtah]

The desired confidence interval, in this case 95%.

Desired by whom? According to what criteria?

It models the response of an instrument to the injection of an aliquot of an unknown sample.

You inject three or more standards of known concentration and by the method of least squares you derive an equation y=mx+b, and then the response of the instrument to the unknown amount allows a calculation of the concentration of the unknown.

Maybe Jay will agree that that is true, maybe not.

The concept you're fumbling around is linear regression. Linear regression is the model. The parameters of the line (m, b) are the output of the model, not the model itself.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Desired by whom? According to what criteria?


The concept you're fumbling around is linear regression. Linear regression is the model. The parameters of the line (m, b) are the output of the model, not the model itself.

Linear regression. That's the term I couldn't recall. Thanks. It's entry-level statistics. I did them in my intro prob/stat (for Economics majors) course as an undergrad.

 

[Mojo]

The Pray Codes is from before the 1532 fire, so those burn holes are from before the 1532 fire.

You can't use your desired conclusion to conclude that the burn holes predate the 1532 fire.

 

[catsmate]

The Damon paper self debunks, so you have that going for you.

No it doesn't. You lack of actual understanding of statistics make you utterly unqualified to make such claims.

Casabianca is only the latest, and it's the one that uses the original data, which wasn't released until Casabianca submitted FOIA to the British Museum.

As I have stated before, several times in fact, this is a shroudie lie.

 

[catsmate]

Why did Damon et al do the test in their paper, is it your opinion that they did not have a clue?

Getting a bit childish aren't you?

That is incorrect, I am focusing on an important part of radiocarbon dating, which you refuse to address.

"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate."

Correct. But, despite your frequent unsupported claims, there is no evidence of extraneous material in the sampled area.
The experts examined the site, several times in fact, and there is no sign of your silly invisible patching nonsense.
Surface contamination, as even you have been forced to concede, was removed by the cleaning process.

The Pray Codes is from before the 1532 fire, so those burn holes are from before the 1532 fire.

'Codex' please.
Some you're claiming that the marks on the supposed shroud in the Codex whichy ou've stated match the burns on the Lirey cloth were made far earlier. And then the later fire damage occurred in exactly the same places?
Drivel.

Still calling it magical invisible reweaving, tell me, how many times has the "Lirey cloth" been mended, darned, or repaired?

Several. And all of those patches are very visible. Except for the one you desperately claim was, and is, invisible to expert examination in just the right place to be part of the radiocarbon sample.
Pathetic magical thinking.


Now @bobdroege7, back to those awkward questions you keep trying to avoid.
1. Where are your claimed examples of first century Middle Eastern woven cloth showing a herringbone weave.
2. Do you still claim there was a secret radiocarbon test performed on the Lirey cloth? If so, by whom, when and where.

 

[catsmate]

You can't use your desired conclusion to conclude that the burn holes predate the 1532 fire.

Yeah. @bobdroege7 brought up the Pray Codex as a 'gotcha' weeks ago, claiming that the marks on the supposed shroud shown in a small image in the work was that of the Lirey cloth because the marks corresponded exactly to the burns to the cloth (they don't even come close). And thus the Lirey cloth was older than believed hence he's right about everything.....

After a digression into the history of the Codex, some cryptographic excursions, I pointed out the burns that he claims are shown in the illustration happened three hundred years later (amongst other evidence that @bobdroege7 was utterly wrong) and he then went very quiet.
Now he seems to be claiming that the marks are from an earlier fire, of which he has provided no evidence (which is unsurprising as the Lirey cloth hadn't been created in ~1200CE) but happened in the same spots.

 

[Mojo]

Now he seems to be claiming that the marks are from an earlier fire, of which he has provided no evidence...

Yes he has: they're shown on the Codex image.

 

[catsmate]

Yes he has: they're shown on the Codex image.

 

[turingtest]

Well, that's just beautiful. "We know the Shroud existed before it was supposed to have been created because of the evidence of the earlier Pray Codex, which we know is the same because we can see the same burn holes even though the Pray Codex existed before the burn holes were created, which doesn't matter because we know the Pray Codex is the same thing, so the burn holes that show they are the same must have been different ones."

ETA- and, not to mention that the Codex doesn't show the central characteristic of the Shroud, i.e., the man's image, but that doesn't matter because the artist just decided it wasn't as important as showing the burn holes which weren't there yet. Yeesh.

 

[Thermal]

Yes he has: they're shown on the Codex image.

Pure circular reasoning in the wild is a sight to behold.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The Pray Codes is from before the 1532 fire, so those burn holes are from before the 1532 fire.

Doesn't follow. There is no basis for concluding that the Pray Codex illustrations depict the Shroud, and plenty of reasons not to.

If the Pray Codex depicts the Shroud, where is the image?

 

[bobdroege7]

Desired by whom? According to what criteria?


The concept you're fumbling around is linear regression. Linear regression is the model. The parameters of the line (m, b) are the output of the model, not the model itself.

Except the model I am looking for is the decay of C-14.

So answer my question,

What does the modeled curve for radioactive decay look like?

And does the data from the Damon paper resemble that? Actually, does it match the calibration curve for C-14, which has adjustments to match the differing amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere.

Damon et al reported a 95% confidence interval.

And the model is y=mx+b, and once you solve for m and b, you have the specific model, and the output is the two sets y and x, where x maps to y.

I'll be away for the weekend, that will give you a chance to show that you can model radioactive decay and compare Damon's results to your model.

Good luck

 

[JayUtah]

Except the model I am looking for is the decay of C-14.

No, that's not the basis of the statistical norm you're applying to the chi-squared test.

Damon et al reported a 95% confidence interval.

What makes that the desired value?

And the model is y=mx+b, and once you solve for m and b, you have the specific model...

No, that is not the statistical model. The statistical model is linear regression, suitable when the underlying behavior is known to be linear. The output of the model is a line. The line is a statistic, much as a z-score is a statistic. But it is not a statistical model. The regression model strives to minimize the sum of variances, which then becomes irrelevant once you have the line. The line itself is a model in a different sense, not the statistical sense.

I'll be away for the weekend...

That should give you plenty of time to research the origin and use of confidence intervals.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Except the model I am looking for is the decay of C-14.

So answer my question,

What does the modeled curve for radioactive decay look like?

If you're plotting the abundance of radioactive material over time as that material decays, it would be a logarithmic curve, but Damon et al. don't plot that, so I'm not sure what you're asking about.

And does the data from the Damon paper resemble that? Actually, does it match the calibration curve for C-14, which has adjustments to match the differing amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere.

Another confusing question. What would it mean for the Shroud data to "match the calibration curve for C-14?"

 

[catsmate]

Well, that's just beautiful. "We know the Shroud existed before it was supposed to have been created because of the evidence of the earlier Pray Codex, which we know is the same because we can see the same burn holes even though the Pray Codex existed before the burn holes were created, which doesn't matter because we know the Pray Codex is the same thing, so the burn holes that show they are the same must have been different ones."

ETA- and, not to mention that the Codex doesn't show the central characteristic of the Shroud, i.e., the man's image, but that doesn't matter because the artist just decided it wasn't as important as showing the burn holes which weren't there yet. Yeesh.

It's like a circular argument, but more complicated. Perhaps a Möbius Argument?
Utter drivel of course,but @bobdroege7 is desperate.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Another question, since I haven't read the Casabianca paper: What do they say about the dating of Sample 4? One of the controls was from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou, dating from the early 1300s. The uncertainties Damon et al. got for that date were as large if not larger than they were from the Shroud. What do Casabianca et al. have to say about that? Is the cope also really a 2000-year-old artifact contaminated by newer material?

 

[JayUtah]

Another confusing question.

Insofar as they are directed to me, they are just an attempt to Gish-gallop away from the rebuttal of Casabianca.

It's like a circular argument, but more complicated. Perhaps a Möbius Argument?

Still circular. Any syllogistic contortion that amounts to asserting the conclusion as a premise qualifies as circular logic even if there are intervening inferences.

 

[catsmate]

Except the model I am looking for is the decay of C-14.

So answer my question,

What does the modeled curve for radioactive decay look like?

And does the data from the Damon paper resemble that? Actually, does it match the calibration curve for C-14, which has adjustments to match the differing amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere.

Damon et al reported a 95% confidence interval.

And the model is y=mx+b, and once you solve for m and b, you have the specific model, and the output is the two sets y and x, where x maps to y.

I'll be away for the weekend, that will give you a chance to show that you can model radioactive decay and compare Damon's results to your model.

Good luck

Good grief this is drivel, you really don't have a clue about radiocarbon dating, do you? In addition to what might, charitably, be described as a rote understanding of stats.

 

[Mojo]

Doesn't follow. There is no basis for concluding that the Pray Codex illustrations depict the Shroud, and plenty of reasons not to.

If the Pray Codex depicts the Shroud, where is the image?

It was painted on later.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another worthwhile article is Professor Giulio Fanti's "Turin Shroud: Comprehensive Impossibility for a Work of Art," published earlier this year in the Medical and Clinical Case Reports Journal. Fanti explains some of the reasons that the Shroud could not be a work of art, including the fact that the Shroud has a double-body image imprint. Here's the abstract for the paper:

This study builds upon previous research that has demonstrated the hypothesis suggesting the Turin Shroud (TS) is a medieval artistic production to be medically implausible.

Beyond the medical considerations, the TS exhibits a double-body image imprint. This phenomenon remains unexplained in its entirety and has not been successfully reproduced in a laboratory setting, even with the most advanced and sophisticated modern techniques.

This research extends the critical analysis of this hypothesis, which continues to be widely disseminated in popular media, by examining the technical and procedural challenges a Hypothetical Artist (HA) would have faced in attempting to produce the observed double-body image on the TS.

This study's primary motivation stems from the author’s extensive research on the TS, spanning more than twenty-five years of university-level scientific investigation. Based on this research, the author asserts the authenticity of the TS, as the body of supporting evidence is substantial, while no verifiable data has been identified that would suggest otherwise.

Following a summary of the medical procedures theoretically required for an artist to produce such an imprint, this study further examines, with experimental results too, the even more complex and implausible technical operations that a hypothetical artist would have needed to undertake to produce the TS’s double-body image-an outcome that remains, even with modern scientific advancements, effectively "impossible" to replicate.