IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 9th August 2013, 03:02 PM   #9281
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
UV light is divided into long-wave and short-wave ultraviolet. I'm pretty sure that long-wave ultraviolet is the so-called black light used so often in labs and discos, and is closer to the visible wavelengths.

I've managed to get that backwards often enough over the years that I include weasels words anymore.
No need to feel sad about that--there are all kinds of things I often switch around in my head. I still can't get radius and ulna straight in humans. I know which part of the limb it is, even how it articulates--but for the life of me, I cannot get the names straight.

Originally Posted by hughfarey
I try not to look actually at the UV light source, mostly not because of its wavelength but because of its intensity,
We were warned of that as well. The eye strain thing was more a caveat against doing work in that lab for a long period of time. Not that it would impact us--we were students, and I've always been more about ecology than genetics (not much Miocene DNA floating around, though there is some). But it was part of their standard "This is a lab. This is dangerous" talk.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:04 PM   #9282
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You know what? I have a way to get out of this rut the conversation's been in for a year.
You might think so, but no, not really.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Let's forget the evidence. Hear me out--the evidence obviously doesn't matter to Jabba. If it did, he'd revise his opinion to fit the evidence, right? So let's ignore it.
With you so far.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Instead, let's get to the heart of the matter: Jabba, what do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurection? I think Jabba answering that question will provide far more insight to Jabba's reasoning than either his lists or further discussion of topics that have been done to death in this thread.
And here is where it goes pear shaped. Doing so would remove Jabba's plausible deniability, which he so clings to. His purpose is to make no claims so that he can dance in an ambiguous argument forevermore by simply not making any claim. He will decline to do so. He knows that as soon as he makes a specific claim that his shroud notions and ideas are sunk without trace.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
<snip for brevity>
I agree with all of the rest of your post.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:36 PM   #9283
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Quick question: Way back when I was in college and doing some genetics work, they said we had to be careful with the UV light because, among other reasons, it can cause eye strain. The wavelengths they were using (for the gells--the stuff where the DNA moves into bands based on segment length, in the agar gell) were close enough to visible that the eye would try to see it, but outside the visible range so it couldn't actually get there.

Is this in any way correct? I've little doubt there were other lies told to me in that class (it's easier than explaining the real issues to a bunch of students, after all), and I'd like to correct my knowledge if this isn't true.
I had a bunch of good bookmarks earlier, but since no one seemed interested, I just gave up.

There are UV A, B, and C and the real nasty VUV. The UV-A is what they use in discos, and commonly are fluorescent lamps with a special filter coating on the inside. Pretty harmless to the eyes, but I would be concerned if I had to work in a disco for years and years.

Now, as for UV-B and UV-C we always used goggles with UV filter. Generally, plexiglass is a sufficient block, but I'd feel better with OSHA approved stuff.

Our UV spectrometers most often used a deuterium lamp, but some of the less exotic ones used simple mercury based devices. As I recall the good ones went down to 210 nm. The lamp puts out a broad spectrum that includes intensities down to 210 and probably below. There is a diffraction grating in some spectrometers that selectively channels a variable very narrow wavelength of light to the sample compartment. Scanning involves turning the diffraction grating. Newer ones use a diode array that merely scans electronically across an array of detectors. Much faster and not dependent on mechanical precision.

We had what are called "cuvettes" for calibration, just very expensive and sophisticated narrow bandpass filters based on total internal reflection at one wavelength.

The deuterium lamp emits a subtle purple glow, barely visible in ambient light, but you don't want to look at it to see if it is working without protective goggles. Cataracts and skin cancer are the inevitable result of over exposure to any UV.

Our UV sources for research usually had two lamps. One for UV-B and one for UV-C. The UV pass filter was almost opaque to visible light when viewed with even an intense incandescent lamp. The bulbs are standard mercury fluorescent about 6" design minus the coating for creating vis light inside the tubes.

We used arrays of UV LED's for special real time research on biological phenomena. As I recall they were in the UV-B range, but down around 290 I think.

Ultraviolet A (long wave, or black wave) UVA 315mn - 400nm
Ultraviolet B (medium wave) UVB 280nm - 315nm
Ultraviolet C (short wave, or germicidal) UVC 200nm - 280nm
Vacuum Ultraviolet VUV 100nm - 200nm 6.20 - 124eV

Long story short, treat all UV with respect and caution. I knew a guy who developed a horrible cancerous tumor on his forearm from years of reaching around and adjusting a large xenon lamp for taking pictures in a print shop.

The ozone layer in our atmosphere protects us from most of the harmful UV, but I believe that in Argentina where a hole exists, or used to exist, lots of blindness is traceable to UV among field workers.

I have to leave. I'll try to address Hughfarey's comments later.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:41 PM   #9284
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
<snip for brevity>
Not my area, but thanks for sharing. You put the "E" in JREF.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:42 PM   #9285
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Garrette,
- If you insist...
- No one here will believe that I'm right, but I'm sure that I'm one of the least emotional "men" in this debate. Hugh may be less emotional, but I do think that the objectivity title is between Hugh and myself -- and, may the best man win...
- On to my household chores...
--- Jabba
Dinwar's reply is excellent, but as you responded to my question, I will acknowledge by adding my own response.

You mix at least two things. First, you mix objectivity and emotion. Emotion can tinge actions and thought process all you like, but it does not matter so long as objectivity is displayed in the handling and processing of evidence and information. I am emotional. I am also objective. They are not exclusive. You, on the other hand, may be unemotional, but you are not remotely objective.

Second, you mix emotions regarding the evidence with emotions regarding your own behavior. All of the emotions in this thread on the skeptic side -- all of them -- have been directed not at the evidence or its analysis, but at your refusal to be objective and intellectually honest about it.

Then, of course, is Dinwar's spot on observation that you are not actually unemotional at all; your entire position is an emotional one; you want, even need, the shroud to be genuine. By your own words you are not remotely objective; you started with the conclusion and now try to fit cherry picked evidence to it.

Finally, none of it matters. What matters is evidence. There are mountains supporting the forgery side, and despite your years of evidence you have not submitted one iota of evidence that withstands scrutiny in support of the authenticity side. This is not an emotional conclusion; it is objective fact.

And doubly finally: your arrogant presumption that you are a superior judge of human nature is laughable.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:49 PM   #9286
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Thanks for the detailed reply, Olowkow. Very inteseting stuff--particularly the refraction grating. I always appreciate knowing more about how equipment works (helps me know how to fix it if I break it, if nothing else!).

However, it still didn't answer the question of whether UV light can cause eye strain.

Originally Posted by Olowkow
The deuterium lamp emits a subtle purple glow, barely visible in ambient light,
That's what I remember from the genetics lab: a faint, purple light. We worked in the dark, in order to see subtle variations better. No, I'm not sure why they were exposing undergrads to UV light instead of simply photographing it. Though, given some members of that class, I wouldn't have objected too strongly. I also remember seeing it flicker very fast--almost too fast to see.

Originally Posted by abaddon
And here is where it goes pear shaped. Doing so would remove Jabba's plausible deniability, which he so clings to.
I said it'd work, not that he'd do it. :P
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 03:52 PM   #9287
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
To do list:

1. Post about posting on the forum.

2.*

3. answer posts about posting on the forum

4. post about answers about post about posting on the forum.

*this is a blank space.

Things I hate:

1. Forum posts.
2. Lists.
3. Irony.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 04:03 PM   #9288
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post

I said it'd work, not that he'd do it. :P
Thread is so long at this stage, has he ever done it?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 04:45 PM   #9289
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,898
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Garrette,
- If you insist...
- No one here will believe that I'm right, but I'm sure that I'm one of the least emotional "men" in this debate. Hugh may be less emotional, but I do think that the objectivity title is between Hugh and myself -- and, may the best man win...
- On to my household chores...
--- Jabba
Jabba, we must be having a serious communication problem here, I guess? Evidently we're not using the same definition of 'objective' because you, sir, have not presented a single piece of objective evidence that supports your argument. Let's review and you can tell me if I've missed something.

There is no objective evidence of the sample area being patched, repaired, rewoven, or otherwise disturbed in any way. Your position is that invisible patching may have screwed the carbon dating. How is that an objective argument?

Your position is that the people involved in examining, selecting, and testing the samples were biased against a first century date and therefore did not return with one. What objective evidence is there for this bias? You have presented none.

There is no objective evidence for the presence of blood on the shroud. You insist that the shroud is bloody, because some tests that can't exclude blood were done, and didn't exclude blood. Surprise, surprise.

So please tell me how you define objectivity?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:33 PM   #9290
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
A paper by T. Heimburger summarizes experiments with UV photography by Miller and Pellicori.

I certainly cannot see any "reddish" or "bright yellow green" florescence on the posted image. Am I missing it?

There is also a purported UV photo, allowing no visible light whatsoever, on this site. Why We May Believe the Shroud is Not Medieval




It would seem they filtered out all the blue, red, yellow and green fluorescence as well as the UV. It's kind of mind boggling.

I'm not convinced. Ray Rogers uses this sort of photo as



It really looks like a visible light photo to me, from which no such conclusions can be drawn. These guys all seem like con men to me. But of course, I could be wrong. Just how? Not sure.
I also get a 404 on that link, Olowkow.
Thanks for sharing your expertise on the subject of UVs- I appreciate it very much.

Last edited by pakeha; 9th August 2013 at 05:36 PM.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:40 PM   #9291
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I also get a 404 on that link, Olowkow.
Thanks for sharing your expertise on the subject of UVs- I appreciate it very much.
Hmmm, the link still works for me. Glad to share some of my experience with folks who are interested.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:50 PM   #9292
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
Hmmm, the link still works for me. Glad to share some of my experience with folks who are interested.
404 here too. Odd. Perhaps you did something unusual?

ETA: Is this the one you were after?

ETA2: I gotta sleep, I ache where I shouldn't.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 9th August 2013 at 05:54 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:01 PM   #9293
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Thanks for the detailed reply, Olowkow. Very inteseting stuff--particularly the refraction grating. I always appreciate knowing more about how equipment works (helps me know how to fix it if I break it, if nothing else!).

However, it still didn't answer the question of whether UV light can cause eye strain.

That's what I remember from the genetics lab: a faint, purple light. We worked in the dark, in order to see subtle variations better. No, I'm not sure why they were exposing undergrads to UV light instead of simply photographing it. Though, given some members of that class, I wouldn't have objected too strongly. I also remember seeing it flicker very fast--almost too fast to see.

I said it'd work, not that he'd do it. :P
I was afraid of that, but I was on a roll.
I was trying to explain that UV-B and C actually damage the eyes. I'm not sure what "eye strain" means to you. To me it is like reading in poor light. For me it is more a question of permanent "eye damage", not just some mild temporary condition.

The diffraction grating is used as a monochromator and is quite ingenious, especially when you see the mechanical kluge, the precision motor driven lead screw assembly and anti backlash elements that are required. Then the chopper stabilized amplifier, for super DC stability in the detector.

I wanted to mention something that I didn't have time for in the previous post. I got a new pair of glasses one day and optometrist asked if I wanted the UV protection applied, as it was on special, cheap. Supposedly some exotic coating they use on the lenses. These were plastic probably Lexan lenses, so I asked the guy, "why do you have to coat Lexan, it already is a UV block?". I knew he didn't know, so I told him , ok, go ahead. My plan was to test the lenses and compare them with my old identical pair without the "coating".

I had an HP UV-VIS diode array spectrometer in the shop at the time, so I removed the sample chamber, taped the glasses in the beam path, did my tests. 500 to 210 nanometers. Essentially, green to UV-C. Not a dime's worth of difference.

The next time I was in the office, I mentioned that I tested the UV coating on a spectrometer and I saw no difference. "OH, we have special equipment to test them". Sheesh!

ETA: Glass blocks a lot of UV, and quartz is the only material that works for UV transparent windows, that I know of.

Last edited by Olowkow; 9th August 2013 at 06:04 PM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:09 PM   #9294
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I can't even imagine making a numbered "to do" list that contains an item "answer yes / no question on internet forum." That's just taking productivity to a whole new low.
He hasn't done that. He's been busy. He hasn't gotten to the item Make a numbered "to do" list that contains an item "answer yes / no question on internet forum." Since he hasn't made that list yet, you surely can't expect him to answer the question.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:34 PM   #9295
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
I'm sorry; your experience with UV wasn't obvious from your earlier post, which is why mine might have come across more patronising than it should.
No problem. I haven't had a lot to offer on the technical aspects, like 14C and other issues, until now.

Quote:
Background fluorescence is quite a difficult phenomenon to explain. In this case, I think it may be due to degradation products due to heat
That could be why there is no Wiki reference.
Quote:
have a look at my experiments at http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehyp...us-hf-3b-query. I'm not sure the exact colour of the fluorescence is particularly significant, as the images depend a lot on how the film was processed.
Now those are photos of fluorescence. The color of the emitted light after excitation is very significant. I'm no chemist, so I can't tell you chapter and verse how and why, but there are even fluorescence spectroscopy instruments using pulsed UV that make up an entire field of research.

Processing the film must be done by highly qualified experts in order to reproduce as closely as possible the exact colors that have been observed, unless the colors have been quantified in some other way which is understood and accepted in the arcane world of the chemist. Otherwise, you have produced nothing but nonsense as data.

I must add that you might want to soft pedal the picture of the enhanced green face on the shroud on the upper left in your website. If you believe that it has any significance at all, you missed my post a few years months back of Frank Zappa using the same "3D" effect. It's bogus. Always has been, always will be. It merely reveals the unscientific nature of this quest.

Quote:
Miller & Pellicori say: "Compared with modern linen, the shroud fluoresces less brightly [I don't agree with that - HF]. It emits a yellow-green colour [although the photos show it as brown, my experiments agree better with yellow green]. Modern linen can be artificially aged by baking at high temperatures (125°-150° C) to the point where its reflected colour and fluorescent emission approach those of the shroud." A similar set of experiments is described in Natalie Boruvka, The Development of Foxing Stains on Samples of Book Paper After Accelerated Aging, at http://www.cac-accr.ca/files/pdf/Vol33_doc3.pdf. Figure 4 shows how fluorescence intensity increases as paper ages, until visible spots appear, at which point it decreases in line with the darkness of the spots. This correlates well with my observations on the scorches, namely that fluorescence is at a maximum when there is no visible scorching, and decreases as scorching gets darker.
The real point about publishing the UV photo was to illustrate the point that, although authenticists often claim that there is a distinct fluorescent border to every bloodstain, there just isn't.
Lots of supposition here, little science. It is written to sound "sciency". It's likely my lack of understanding, or caring to follow their reasoning, but this is just not professional research. It's not science. It's like, "Mine is darker than yours," and "OH, my pictures show more brown, probably because I left them in the fixer too long." And "Kind of yellow". WTF? What is that in nanometers? And what does it mean in terms of the Jesusness of this thing? Or the age? Maybe it was rinsed in Tide? Who knows? Who cares?

I still can't find a freaking hypothesis?

I spent a lot of long difficult years with true professionals, real scientists who would lose sleep over a missing footnote. I just can't take these people seriously, sorry.

Last edited by Olowkow; 9th August 2013 at 06:36 PM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:36 PM   #9296
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I was afraid of that, but I was on a roll.
I was trying to explain that UV-B and C actually damage the eyes. I'm not sure what "eye strain" means to you. To me it is like reading in poor light. For me it is more a question of permanent "eye damage", not just some mild temporary condition.

The diffraction grating is used as a monochromator and is quite ingenious, especially when you see the mechanical kluge, the precision motor driven lead screw assembly and anti backlash elements that are required. Then the chopper stabilized amplifier, for super DC stability in the detector.

I wanted to mention something that I didn't have time for in the previous post. I got a new pair of glasses one day and optometrist asked if I wanted the UV protection applied, as it was on special, cheap. Supposedly some exotic coating they use on the lenses. These were plastic probably Lexan lenses, so I asked the guy, "why do you have to coat Lexan, it already is a UV block?". I knew he didn't know, so I told him , ok, go ahead. My plan was to test the lenses and compare them with my old identical pair without the "coating".

I had an HP UV-VIS diode array spectrometer in the shop at the time, so I removed the sample chamber, taped the glasses in the beam path, did my tests. 500 to 210 nanometers. Essentially, green to UV-C. Not a dime's worth of difference.

The next time I was in the office, I mentioned that I tested the UV coating on a spectrometer and I saw no difference. "OH, we have special equipment to test them". Sheesh!

ETA: Glass blocks a lot of UV, and quartz is the only material that works for UV transparent windows, that I know of.
I did a bit of research and it turns out you know what you're talking about. I hope you got your special cheap price back, if it's worth the trouble.
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright
Maurice Ledifficile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:38 PM   #9297
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I also get a 404 on that link, Olowkow.
Thanks for sharing your expertise on the subject of UVs- I appreciate it very much.
Maybe it can be accessed elsewhere.

Quote:
THE TURIN SHROUD BODY IMAGE: THE SCORCH HYPOTHESIS REVISITED
By Thibault Heimburger. All rights reserved.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:40 PM   #9298
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile View Post
I did a bit of research and it turns out you know what you're talking about. I hope you got your special cheap price back, if it's worth the trouble.
Nah. $30.00, as I recall. The price of education.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 06:50 PM   #9299
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
[...]

ETA: Glass blocks a lot of UV, and quartz is the only material that works for UV transparent windows, that I know of.
Our accounting department calls me on the carpet with some regularity for paying so much (>USD 500 and more) for the special UV/Visible/fluorescence lamps made of quartz, and filled with exotic gasses like deuterium and xenon. One of them actually told me she could buy lamps at Wal-Mart for $25.00

__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 07:09 PM   #9300
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
I try not to look actually at the UV light source, mostly not because of its wavelength but because of its intensity, which I believe may damage the retina, though probably not permanently. However, I also believe that only a little UV reflects from anything, so that looking at the irradiated object is quite safe. Bees and similar insects can actually see UV as visible light, which is why flowers look different for them. Olowkow can probably throw more light on this...
I believe you are correct that reflected UV is less harmful than direct exposure to the eyes. The wavelength is in fact the problem as well as intensity. Short wavelengths (higher energy) such as UV-B and UV-C are quite dangerous even for short term exposure, while UV-a, much less so. I still don't like to go into rooms lit by UV-A though.

Yes, many flowers are highly UV reflective, and some are even fluorescent to some extent. The "DAY GlO" colors are made to maximize UV reflection. Bees see in the UV, so they are attracted to these more than other less interesting colors, so it's said. Even scorpions are fluorescent under UV light. Police use an "alternative light source", one of which is a UV flashlight to look for semen, urine, and even blood when sprayed with Luminol.

As for cataracts, no fun, but there is surgical hope these days.

Quote:
Ultraviolet light, specifically UV-B, has been shown to cause cataract and there is some evidence that sunglasses worn at an early age can slow its development in later life.[7] Most UV light from the sun is filtered out by the atmosphere but airline pilots often have high rates of cataract because of the increased levels of UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.[8] It is hypothesized that depletion of the ozone layer and a consequent increase in levels of UV light on the ground may increase future rates of cataracts.

Last edited by Olowkow; 9th August 2013 at 07:23 PM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 07:20 PM   #9301
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Our accounting department calls me on the carpet with some regularity for paying so much (>USD 500 and more) for the special UV/Visible/fluorescence lamps made of quartz, and filled with exotic gasses like deuterium and xenon. One of them actually told me she could buy lamps at Wal-Mart for $25.00

I'd say, "Go for it!" Right, I remember the D2 (deuterium) lamps were around $500 or so. The VIS side used various halogen cycle bulbs.

The diode array specs used quartz windows into and out of the sample compartment. They were left on 24 hours a day, and these windows (3/4 inch circle of quartz) would become fogged in some labs due to ambient nasty stuff in the air getting baked onto the windows somehow. The windows were really expensive (I think $50 each?) from HP (Hewlett Packard for the youngsters), so I had the glass shop cut me a few dozen for a few bucks.

ETA: Of course, halogen lamps are made of quartz also, for a different reason. They need to run super hot in order for the halogen cycle to work, preventing tungsten from being deposited on the inside of the envelope. As a result, they also emit an ungodly amount of UV.

Last edited by Olowkow; 9th August 2013 at 07:27 PM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 08:18 PM   #9302
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Back in the olden days, UV erasable EPROMS came with quartz windows.
Then for production, you'd buy the OTP part in the much cheaper plastic case.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 10:45 PM   #9303
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
That's at least a little more in the ballpark. Photoshop?


Yep.

__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 11:24 PM   #9304
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
Maybe it can be accessed elsewhere.
Is this the article in question?
http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress...h-paper-en.pdf
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 02:39 AM   #9305
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
Back in the olden days, UV erasable EPROMS came with quartz windows.
Then for production, you'd buy the OTP part in the much cheaper plastic case.
And they are still around.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 05:38 AM   #9306
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Ressurection?

Originally Posted by Dinwar
Instead, let's get to the heart of the matter: Jabba, what do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurection? I think Jabba answering that question will provide far more insight to Jabba's reasoning than either his lists or further discussion of topics that have been done to death in this thread.
Originally Posted by Akri View Post
That's not a bad idea. What do you say, Jabba? Care to make answering that question Priority 1?
Akri & Dinwar,
- OK.
- But first, I suspect that the underlying issue is whether or not I believe in the supernatural. Is that right?
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 05:57 AM   #9307
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Akri & Dinwar,
- OK.
- But first, I suspect that the underlying issue is whether or not I believe in the supernatural. Is that right?
--- Jabba
Mr Savage:

Why not just answer the question? Don't try to manage the "underlying issue", don't try to doctor the spin, don't try to CYA...just answer the question.

Quote:
Jabba, what do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurection?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:05 AM   #9308
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by Dinwar
Instead, let's get to the heart of the matter: Jabba, what do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurection? I think Jabba answering that question will provide far more insight to Jabba's reasoning than either his lists or further discussion of topics that have been done to death in this thread.
Akri & Dinwar,
- OK.
- But first, I suspect that the underlying issue is whether or not I believe in the supernatural. Is that right?
--- Jabba
No. No it isn't. Answer the question asked. Stop prevaricating and dodging.

What do you believe regarding the shroud and the resurection?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:10 AM   #9309
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by Dinwar
Jesus Christ on toast.
Quote:
How to use the Multi-quote function
This is the Multi-quote button [see below -carlito] : Multi-quote It is located next to the Quote button under each post.

If you want to reply to more than one post at a time, click the Multi-quote button under each of the posts you wish to reply to. Next, click the Quote button of one of those posts, and all those posts will be quoted in chronological order in the Reply box.

Multi-quote can also be used to quote posts from one thread in another thread. Click the multi-quote button under the posts you wish to quote then click 'Reply' (or quote a post) in the thread you wish to reply to, and underneath the reply box click "Quote these posts as well". All the posts you have selected will appear, and you can now add your comments before posting.
Attached Images
File Type: gif multiquote_off.gif (709 Bytes, 103 views)
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:15 AM   #9310
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by Dinwar
Instead, let's get to the heart of the matter: Jabba, what do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurection? I think Jabba answering that question will provide far more insight to Jabba's reasoning than either his lists or further discussion of topics that have been done to death in this thread.
Akri & Dinwar,
- OK.
- But first, I suspect that the underlying issue is whether or not I believe in the supernatural. Is that right?
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Jesus Christ on toast.
Calitos,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:15 AM   #9311
hugh farey
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
I think the mysterious photo that Olowkow and myself don't think is a UV one even though it is so captioned is this one. http://shroudstory.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/i4.jpg. Is that right?
hugh farey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:26 AM   #9312
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Calitos,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba
Mr Savage: "What do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurrection?"
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 06:57 AM   #9313
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Ressurection?

Re: 2.3. Am I trying to prove Resurrection?

- Again, the simple answer is “no.”
- As you all know, I would like the resurrection to be a fact, and in that way, I am biased.
- But then, I don’t want to believe in something that isn’t true.
- I’m here to see if my hopes can withstand scrutiny.

- If you’d let me do it my way, I should find out relatively quickly whether or not my hopes can withstand scrutiny…
- But you won’t, and YOUR WAY makes progress towards the answer almost impossible.

- Even if the shroud is authentic, it doesn’t PROVE that Jesus was who he said he was, or that he was resurrected.
- But then, since I do not eliminate the supernatural or transcendence from the possible, authenticity would be evidence for both – and evidence for authenticity would be evidence for both.
- So – I’m not trying to prove that there actually was a resurrection involved. I’m trying to provide significant evidence that the shroud really was the burial cloth of the Biblical Jesus.
- And, such would be evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he was resurrected.

How’s that?

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:18 AM   #9314
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Re: 2.3. Am I trying to prove Resurrection?

- Again, the simple answer is “no.”
Really?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As you all know, I would like the resurrection to be a fact, and in that way, I am biased.
Biased? In spades.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But then, I don’t want to believe in something that isn’t true.
You already believe it to be true as evidenced in this thread.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I’m here to see if my hopes can withstand scrutiny.
And those ideas have been repeatedly shown to be ideas without merit in this thread.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If you’d let me do it my way, I should find out relatively quickly whether or not my hopes can withstand scrutiny…
Not true. Your method would result in a conversation hopelessly skewed in favour of authenticity and would exclude most respondants.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But you won’t, and YOUR WAY makes progress towards the answer almost impossible.
The conclusion supported by the evidence was reached one year and many posts ago.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Even if the shroud is authentic, it doesn’t PROVE that Jesus was who he said he was, or that he was resurrected.
No kidding.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But then, since I do not eliminate the supernatural or transcendence from the possible, authenticity would be evidence for both – and evidence for authenticity would be evidence for both.
Are you reversing and stating you do believe it?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So – I’m not trying to prove that there actually was a resurrection involved. I’m trying to provide significant evidence that the shroud really was the burial cloth of the Biblical Jesus.
When did you plan on providing such evidence?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, such would be evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he was resurrected.
Are you reversing and stating you do believe it?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
How’s that?

--- Jabba
Not great, TBH. You have simply tried to restate how you would like to frame the "debate". Again. You have failed to answer the question at hand.

What do you believe regarding the shroud and the Resurrection?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:25 AM   #9315
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Administrator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 15,839
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Re: 2.3. Am I trying to prove Resurrection?

- Again, the simple answer is “no.”
- As you all know, I would like the resurrection to be a fact, and in that way, I am biased.
- But then, I don’t want to believe in something that isn’t true.
- I’m here to see if my hopes can withstand scrutiny.

- If you’d let me do it my way, I should find out relatively quickly whether or not my hopes can withstand scrutiny…
- But you won’t, and YOUR WAY makes progress towards the answer almost impossible.

- Even if the shroud is authentic, it doesn’t PROVE that Jesus was who he said he was, or that he was resurrected.
- But then, since I do not eliminate the supernatural or transcendence from the possible, authenticity would be evidence for both – and evidence for authenticity would be evidence for both.
- So – I’m not trying to prove that there actually was a resurrection involved. I’m trying to provide significant evidence that the shroud really was the burial cloth of the Biblical Jesus.
- And, such would be evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he was resurrected.

How’s that?

--- Jabba
Confusing. That's what you would like to 'prove', and what you want to believe. It doesn't answer the question of what you actually do believe about the shroud.

I suggest that it's already been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that your hopes cannot stand up to scrutiny and indeed have nothing to do with reality. You have a fundamental and uncrossable gap between your faith-based hopes and your evidence-based knowledge.

There is nothing inherently wrong with holding a faith-based position, as long as the person understands that the position is not grounded in reality and may be (as in this case) actively contradicted by the evidence. If faith gives you comfort, go right ahead. Though don't try to pretend that your position is anything other than faith.

However, you say that you don't want to believe in something which isn't true, which implies that you would prefer to hold an evidence-based rather than a faith-based position. In that case, your hopes and wants are really immaterial. Evidence and reality simply don't take account of anybody's desires.

The reality is that the shroud is from the 13th/14th century. Of itself, it says nothing at all about the likelihood of Jesus being real, or divine, or even whether there was a resurrection. If you are looking for evidence supporting Christianity, you'll need to look elsewhere.

The shroud's mediaeval origin need not affect your desire for Christianity to be 'true'; it just can't be a piece of evidence in favour of that desire. Unless you can separate the reality of the shroud from your faith, you will be forever following a false trail in your pursuit of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:44 AM   #9316
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,676
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I’m here to see if my hopes can withstand scrutiny.
.
.
.
I’m trying to provide significant evidence that the shroud really was the burial cloth of the Biblical Jesus.
- And, such would be evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he was resurrected.

How’s that?

--- Jabba


Well the above actually IS a statement of Jabba saying his interest in the shroud is because he regards it as evidence supporting his belief in the biblical resurrection of Jesus.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:10 AM   #9317
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Correct. Same one. Thanks.

I have no idea why my link won't work, it still does for me.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:31 AM   #9318
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by hughfarey View Post
I think the mysterious photo that Olowkow and myself don't think is a UV one even though it is so captioned is this one. http://shroudstory.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/i4.jpg. Is that right?
Yes. The above link is a picture taken in white light not UV-A. Since many are averse to clicking on links, I'll even host the photo.



Akhenaten may even do us the honor of making it all sparkley and UV-ey, so it looks more Jesus-ey and sciency.

Also the first one you posted--the one that Akhenaten PhotoShopped to appear all purply and stuff--the one that triggered my need to present my credentials with UV--is not taken in UV-A (disco) lighting as claimed.

It's almost like they got their photos confused when writing the papers, but then the reference to the "white triangle" would mean it is the photo they intended. I don't understand what is going on, frankly.

Your website photos, on the other hand, are obviously indeed proper pictures of UV lit items.

The test for UV fluorescence photos when publishing is simple and straightforward:

If the glow isn't lit, don't submit!

This business of, "oh, they changed to colors when printing the images" strikes me as unfathomably unacceptable for anyone calling himself a scientist.

Last edited by Olowkow; 10th August 2013 at 08:40 AM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:40 AM   #9319
TimCallahan
Philosopher
 
TimCallahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tim,
- I did put your question into the lists as 2.3. My simple answer to your question is "no." But, it's also a simplistic answer, and I wanted to put some time into giving what I believe to be a more fitting answer.
- So, my simple/simplistic answer is "no." But if you want me to say more about it, it has to go back on my time-consuming list, and wait its turn. I'm moving on with the Adler/Miller & Pellicori issue unless I get suggestions otherwise.
--- Jabba
Fine. If, as you say, you're not trying to use the Shroud of Turin to prove the Resurrection, then it really matters little whether or not it was the original burial shroud of Jesus. It also shouldn't be a problem for you should it turn out to be a medieval forgery. That being the case, why waste all this time and energy on something this minor? After all, were there no Shroud of Turin, Christianity would still be here.
TimCallahan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:46 AM   #9320
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
OK. This is a pretty good page to give everyone an idea what UV fluorescence photography should look like. I can't host all the pics, so just click on the link.

They are using a UV flash, which is a neat idea.

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/11/an-i...n-photographs/

Using UV-A, which is the range claimed by these shroud people, items that do not fluoresce don't just disappear into the void, they are still visible but simply not glowing. Everything should appear all purply or blue even when they are not fluorescing--not invisible. So claiming that the entire amazing shroud is glowing brown under UV-A illumination is sheer nonsense. OK, if someone altered the colors using photoshop, fine, but why would anyone want to do so?

Last edited by Olowkow; 10th August 2013 at 08:49 AM.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.