Robert A Rucker

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Yes, the intensity distance relationship is just one of the evidences that something was going from the body to the shroud across the air gaps in between. As they travel through the air, sub atomic particles could be absorbed, scattered, or decay. Photons such as ultraviolet light could be absorbed or scattered.

The information content that is on the shroud that defines an image of a crucified man had to come from the body, and it could only be communicated from the body to the Shroud of Turin by radiation. I will soon be publishing an article that discusses this. The title is “Information Content on the Shroud of Turin”.

Bob Rucker.

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Mat. 22:30 does not say that we will have a body like an angel in the resurrection. It does say “but are like angels in heaven” but the context is that we will not “marry nor are given in marriage”. So the meaning is that in the resurrection, we will not be married just as the angels in heaven are not married.

It is also clear that Jesus in his post resurrection appearances had a physical body that could be felt (Luke 24:39, John 20:27) and he could eat food that was given to him (Luke 24:42 43). It should also be clear that our resurrection bodies will also have physicality since our resurrection bodies will be patterned after Jesus’ resurrection body (Phil.

3:20 21)..

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Please read what I said carefully. I did not say that “the Image of the Shroud had been formed “through a neutron absorption event””. What I said was “The dating laboratories, not realizing that the shroud had been through a neutron absorption event, would have misinterpreted their result by assuming the wrong C14 decay curve.”

The neutrons shifted the C14 date, but it should be clear that the neutrons did not cause the image on the Shroud of Turin. The reasoning is fairly simple. Neutrons have no electrical charge, so that they do not interact with the cloud of electrons going around the very small nucleus in the center of each atom.

Neutrons only interact with an atom if they hit and interact with the nucleus, which is thousands of times smaller than the cloud of electrons going around the nucleus. This means that neutrons are highly penetrating particles. They would probably penetrate one or two feet into the limestone before being stopped.

As a result, neutrons emitted from within the body would easily go through the thin cloth of the shroud. So if somehow neutrons caused the image on the inside of the cloth, then they would have also caused the same image all the way through the cloth and onto the outside of the cloth.

But this is not the case so the image was not produced by neutrons. Since the image is just a surface effect, it must have been caused by something that would be stopped by just the thinnest of materials such as low energy charged particles such as protons and electrons, or by low energy photons of electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet energy range, which is why Lazzaro is working on experiments with ultraviolet.

You make reference to Ray Rogers’ paper from 2005. Please don’t believe this paper at face value. The certainty of his statement in the abstract “It is concluded that the image could not have been involved energetic radiation of any kind; electrons, protons, alpha particles, and/or neutrons” is contradicted by the tentativeness of his statement at the end of the body of the paper “I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation based hypothesis for image formation will ultimately be rejected.”

From this latter statement it is clear that Rogers knew that the information that he presented in his paper did not prove that radiation could not be involved in the image formation. The issue is that Rogers knew that the discoloration in the image on the Shroud of Turin could be formed by lower energy radiation than he had experimental evidence of and discussed in his paper.

So how then did he know that radiation would “ultimately” be rejected? It’s because of his philosophical presupposition of naturalism. His statement “I do not believe in miracles” can be seen on youtube.com. Radiation being emitted from a dead body would be a miracle in his mind, so he just knew that it would ultimately be rejected.

So why would he allow the statement in his abstract to contradict the conclusion in the body of the paper? There is no evidence that this paper was ever published or peer reviewed, and Ray Rogers died on March 8 of 2005, so he only lived for 67 days out of that year.

Realize also that authors often, if not usually, write the abstract based on what they hope and think that they can prove in the body of the paper so that the abstract will act as a guide to them to keep them on track, so that they write the abstract prior to writing the body of the paper.

Then after writing the body of the paper they go back and revise the abstract to reflect what was actually proven in the body of the paper. What I am suggesting is that Ray Rogers evidently never did this last step probably because of his health problems while in the process of dying of cancer.

I, along with others, have completed a thorough review of Rogers 2005 paper and have documented the inadequacy of his evidence that he presented. I will soon be publishing this as a 13 page review of his 10 page 2005 paper under the title “Review of “The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging, and Image Formation” by Ray Rogers”.

At this point, I don’t feel like searching for what Gonella said about radiation but if you could find it and include it in a reply to me, I will try to respond to it. Bob Rucker.

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Your first sentence sounds like it is based on the assumption that it was the neutrons that caused the image on the cloth. I am not saying that and do not believe that. Please see my response above to piero..

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

For backgroud on the reasons for my statement, please see chapter 9 of Mark Antonacci’s new book titled “Test the Shroud”..

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Experiments have shown that protons and ultraviolet light can cause discoloration similar to that found in the image on the Shroud of Turin. I think both of these are good candidates..

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

I just did an internet search and found that linen in 92% cellulose, 4% lignin, and 2% hemi cellulose. These are also the values that I used to determine the atom densities for linen that I had to input into the MCNP nuclear analysis computer code. These three compounds are composed of only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, with no nitrogen at all.

In my search, the remaining 2% was listed as “other”, and was ignored in my MCNP calculations except for very small amounts of nitrogen and chlorine, which are down at the impurity level. Based on an email from Art Lind on 3 3 14, modern linen has 500 to 900 ppm (parts per million by weight) with an average of 650 ppm for nitrogen and 35 to 150 ppm (70 ppm average) for chlorine.

Art had to know these values for his previous work (“Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation on Linen” by Lind, Antonacci, Fanti, Elmore, and Guthrie). I used a weight percent of 0.0650 for nitrogen in linen in my MCNP calculations, which is equivalent to Art’s average value of 650 ppm for nitrogen in linen.

The point is that there is only a very small amount of nitrogen in linen so that even if all of the N14 were converted to C14, you would see no difference in the linen. If a different value is assumed for the nitrogen content in linen, then the results can be adjusted.

For example, if only half as much N14 were present in the linen, i.e. 0.0325 wt.%, then the number of neutrons that would be required to be emitted in the body to cause a shift in the C14 date from 30 to 1260 AD at the sample location would be doubled to 6.0

x 10 E18. At the assumed nitrogen content of 0.0650 wt.% for linen, the N14 atom density input into MCNP was 2.57 E 05 atoms/b cm (atoms per barn centimeter), where a barn is 10 E 24 cm2, and is a typical unit used in the nuclear industry. The total atom density for all elements in the linen was input to MCNP as 7.05

E 02 atoms/b cm. According to Wikipedia, the atom fraction of C14 in carbon in the air is between 1.0 and 1.5 x 10 E 12, with the higher value being assumed in my calculations. This results in only 3.07 E 14 atoms/b cm of C14 in the linen. With a half life of 5730 years for the C14, the C14 atom density must be increased by only 4.93

E 15 atoms/b cm to cause a shift in the C14 date from 30 AD to 1260 AD. This is only a 16.0% increase. So only 4.93 E 15 atoms/b cm of the N14 in the linen must be converted into C14 by neutron absorption (N14 + neutron –> C14 + proton) out of the 2.57

E 05 atoms/b cm of the N14 that is in the linen. 4.93 E 15 divided by 2.57 E 05 is an atom fraction of only 1.92 E 10, so that only 0.000000192 % of the N14 that is assumed to be in the linen at 650 ppm must be converted into C14 to shift the C14 date from 30 AD to 1260 AD.

This small change in the N14 content in the Shroud would not even be measurable. I hope this answers your questions. Bob Rucker.

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

As with other human bodies, the atoms that made up the human body of Jesus would have been composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons. I am suggesting that a very small fraction of these (0.000000015%) were left behind, ie. Emitted, when the body disappeared from the tomb in the resurrection. My MNCP computer code calculated that 3.0

x 10 E18 neutrons emitted from the body would be needed to shift the C14 date in the sample region from 30 to 1260 AD. Protons and electrons, as well as photons in the ultraviolet energy range, could also have been emitted from the body in the resurrection as well as neutrons.

So I am saying that the neutrons would have shifted the C14 date, and the protons, electrons, and ultraviolet could have caused the image as a radiation burn. An alpa particle is a combination of two neutrons and two protons with no electrons. I am not considering the emission of alpha particles from the body at this time.

Bob Rucker.

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

It is difficult to even talk about “miracle” and “super natural” because people have so many different ideas about what the words even mean. “Miracle” to many scientists simply means a violation of the laws of science, but there have been many violations of the “laws of science” in the past due to discovery of new phenomena so that the “violation” was a very natural thing and a good thing that lead to a revision of the “laws of science” to bring them into conformity with reality.

So a better definition of a miracle would be a violation of the laws of science as we currently understand them. A Christian definition of a miracle might be “an event caused by God that causes awe in the beholder” but then even a flower growing might be called a miracle.

The word supper natural has the same problems. Does it mean above or outside of the laws of science as we currently understand them? But the “laws of science” are not static things, but have been developed over time so that something that would have been outside of the laws of science in 1890 might not be outside of the laws of science in 2015 because the laws of science have been adjusted over the last 125 to account for the new phenomena.

I think nearly everyone would consider the resurrection of Jesus to be a miracle and a super natural event but perhaps that is only from our perspective. Perhaps God used a process that was well known to him from before the foundation of the world, yet He had never used it before.

So to us it would be totally outside of the laws of science as we currently know them, though it would not be new to God as all. As I see it, the main problem in Shroud research is the philosophical presupposition of naturalism, which rules out the possibility of the resurrection of Jesus as well as ruling out the possibility of radiation being emitted from within the body, which I believe is the main solution to the enigma of the Shroud.

Regarding the blood having too red of appearance, I have encountered two explanations: 1) the high bilirubin content would keep the blood red, and 2) neutron irradiation of the blood may have kept the blood red. I’m not sure about either one so that both probably need further experimentation. Of course the second explanation fits in nicely with my emphasis on neutrons being emitted from within the body.

Bob Rucker.

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

It sounds like you are suggesting that Radon, which is a gas, is released from the limestone of the tomb when an earthquake occurs. The radon then diffuses around in the air of the tomb until it decays presumably by neutron emission. I see several problems with this idea. First, radon 222 decays by alpha emission with a half life of 3.8

days. An alpha particle consists of two neutrons + two protons and has an electrical charge of +2. Absorption of an alpha particle in the Shroud would not cause N14 in the cloth to go to C14, so it would not have an affect on the C14 date. But even if it released neuterons instead of alpha particles, the 3.8

day halflife must also be taken into account. Since radon is a gas, it would gradually diffuse out ot the tomb through the gap between the stone and the opening of the tomb. My calculations indicate that at leaset 3.0 x 10 E18 neutrons would have to be released inside the tomb (and actually with a starting location inside the Shroud) to achieve a shift in the C14 date from 30 to 1260 AD for the sample area near the feet.

I do not have the data to do the calculation right now, but I seriously doubt that enough radon atoms could be released from the limestone in an earthquake that would cause this many neutrons to be released in the tomb before it leaked out of the tomb. Next, my computer calculations show that the neutrons must be emitted uniformly inside the body in order to achieve the neutron distribution inside the tomb that could produce a slope or gradient in the C14 date of 42 to 57 years per cm across the C14 dates from the three laboratories.

With the radon assumed to be emitting neutrons fairly uniformly in the air in the tomb, the date on the side bench would also be about 1260 AD for the face cloth. Thus, the slope of the C14 dates at the sample location in the Shroud and the C14 date for the Sudarium of Oeido would not be explained by radon releasing neutrons in the air in the tomb.

I hope this is enough to persuade you that this is not a feasible option..

/blood/ article: Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things↑ top

proconadd note

Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other human bodies that have emitted neutrons from within Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other human bodies that have emitted neutrons from within their bodies, and the answer to this question is no. Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other linen that was exposed to neutron radiation that resulted in a shift in the C14 date, and the answer to this question is yes – see “Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation of Linen” by Art Lind, et al.

The process of transporting the neutrons, slowing them down, and absorbing them is all being handled by the MCNP computer code, which has been validated and verified to NRC and DOE standards, so that all of these aspects of the issue are according to the normal laws of physics. The only thing that is not according to the laws of physics as we currently understand them is the emission of neutrons from within the dead body that was wrapped in the shroud.

To put this issue into perspective, think about the estimated 7.3 billion people on earth at this time. In the trillions of times they put clothing on and take clothing off, at no time does their body leave an image on the inside of the clothing. Perhaps something like 10 billion people previously died on this planet, and probably most of them were buried in some kind cloth, yet none of them have left an image of their body on the cloth.

If the process by which an image of a body can be left on cloth is a naturalistic process, then we should have seen other examples of a body image on cloth. But we only see an image of a body on cloth for one person, whose bearded naked body was very evidently crucified exactly as the New Testament gospels say that Jesus was crucified.

It should be obvious that something very special and very unique is going on here. Thus, we should be open to something going on here that is outside the bounds of our current understanding of the laws of science. So yes, I believe that what science is saying from the Shroud of Turin is consistent with what the historical records (the New Testament gospels) are saying – that Jesus was raised from the dead in the resurrection.

It makes sense Biblically, theologically, and physically. See Appendix H in Mark Antonacci’s new book “Test the Shroud” where Mark has included a paper that I wrote on how Jesus’ body disappeared from the tomb, where I discuss the Biblical, theological, and physical/scientific issues related to the disappearance of Jesus’ body from the tomb.

This paper will be soon be published and available in two parts under the title “The Disappearance of Jesus’ Body Part 1: Biblical and Theological Considerations” and “The Disappearance of Jesus’ Body Part 2: Physical Considerations”..