Play online chess!

From	Message
lord_shiva 10-Jan-25, 23:17	Shroud of Turin I While one thread was probably more than enough, I didn’t wish to leave unanswered questions. Apatzer writes: <<Jewish law and traditions emphasized the sanctity of burial spaces, but there is no explicit evidence suggesting that unused tombs had to remain closed. However, Jewish customs required burial grounds to be marked and respected to avoid ritual impurity, and disturbing graves or tombs was strictly prohibited. An imperial decree during Emperor Claudius's reign also imposed severe penalties for tampering with graves, reflecting the importance of preserving burial sites. The shroud (as far as history is concerned) was first seen in France 1354, over 2,000 miles from Israel and 1354 years after 1st century pollen. It is possible, however I believe that it is highly improbable that a medieval forger placed it in a 1st century Tomb. How would they know that the Tomb was of the target age? And how would they have access? It might be possible that a crusader may have had access. But why would a medieval person think to do that? Planting evidence that they didn't know existed or is it simply an accidental thing. That is a lot of coincidences.>> So Teutonic knights need not observe Jewish customs. 1354 years after first century pollen. Actually, a bit less. The shroud appears in the 11th century Hungarian manuscript, and subtracting first century pollen yields a thousand years. What’s three centuries between friends? So the tomb would have been open while being dug and prepared, plenty of opportunity for pollen contamination. We WANT it sealed to reduce later century pollen. So the knights are free to plant the shroud in any tomb dating back to the first century. Doesn’t have to be the tomb of Jesus, but it needs to be somewhere in the region to collect local pollen. They would WANT a first century tomb to lend credence to the person chosen to “find” the shroud. Nothing beats testimony like that of the person who discovers the planted material. If they KNEW it was fake they have a harder time spinning convincing lies. It takes true Groper style talent to make up lies people want to believe. So the knights leave the shroud i pin the tomb some period of time, a year or two, NOT to collect pollen (which is inadvertent) but to give their tomb time to heal—to erase evidence they already breached it. Then they pick a prominent local, inform them they have information on location of the actual tomb, and request permission to confirm this. The local opens the tomb, finds the shroud, reports this to everyone to create press. The knights negotiate for it (or just seize it) and cart the relic off back home. So THEY know it came from the holy land, and they have street cred. Maybe a local or two travels with them to confirm their “find.” It isn’t a long con, but we’re checking all the critical boxes. The pollen is simply a fringe benefit. Better yet, locals make the shroud, imprint the image, seal it in an ancient tomb (a number date back to the appropriate period), wait a few years and THEN have itinerant knights consult with a medium who imparts knowledge of the tomb location. They raid the tomb, and they are all true believers because they found this relic themselves—they had nothing to do with its forgery. The locals still extract payment for grave robbing, there has to be an exchange or the forgery effort is wasted. Can you think of a reason for forging a shroud that involves only prestige?
jonheck 16-Jan-25, 01:45	lord-shiva <one thread was probably enough>. Agree, but thanks anyway for the partial review.
apatzer 22-Jan-25, 14:19	Lord Shiva There are some glaring problems with your story. If locals made the shroud of Turin, science would undoubtedly know how they made it. People in the medieval period had no knowledge of photography to even think to create an image in the form of a photographic negative. Or to have encoded 3D information in it. Or the ability to create an image that is 2 microns thick uniformly. Heck most of the image wasn't even visible until the shroud was photoshopped in the 1800's when the photographer was developing the film, he got quite the shock. Also, if there was such an elaborate origin story and they got lucky by placing it in a 1st century Tomb. And the story was made up to give the artifact bona fideus. Why then is there no mention what so ever of this occuring? The knight who presented it had trouble telling them where he got it from, and that Drew suspicion from the cardinal who questioned it's authenticity. If it was made for prestige then they did a horrible job of getting it. If it was made for profit, the same. To my knowledge the shroud has never been sensationalized, and while a few people probably did make money. I'm sure that dealing with the Catholic Church during Medieval times wasn't something someone did lightly and frankly it would be quite dangerous.
lord_shiva 22-Jan-25, 20:34	Glaring Problem We were able to make terrestrial cement stronger than the Romans could with prestressed concrete beginning in the 1950s. But we still don’t understand how they managed their marine concrete, which we still cannot match. Roman cement was the marvel of the modern world for centuries, unmatchable. Ancient people knew many arts lost to us. The Mayans and Aztecs maintained civilizations we could not match with our understanding of the technology available to them. Cities bigger than any in Europe, ever. Yet they maintained clean sanitation and water, and a healthy population. And they did marvelous wonders with crop engineering.
apatzer 23-Jan-25, 06:39	Lord Shiva yes indeed they did. The Ancients were by no means primitive. You left out The Lycurgus Cup, a 4th-century Roman artifact. You should have thrown that one in there. But you are making a point of steaks VS Apples. A recipe for Concrete is different than a image 2 microns thick and uniform, in the form of a photagrfic negative. With absolutely no other examples like it at all.
lord_shiva 23-Jan-25, 07:10	Antikethyra Device No other examples like it. Also, no one has brought up the inscription that proves beyond a shroud of doubt the authenticity of the holy relic s the burial cloth of Christ. phys.org I’m thinking the Lycurgis cup must have been the chalice from the last supper. The grail. It would have been perfect for that. My wife has played a LOT with dichroic glass.
lord_shiva 23-Jan-25, 07:28	Lycurgus Cup 3rd or 4th century CE, not BCE. My mistake. No diatrea date to the time of Christ. The cage cups are fascinating, though. BIBE VIVAS MVLTIS ANNIS: "Drink and you will live for many years". So some were pretty clearly for drinking, whereas others served as lamps, most likely. Thanks for mentioning this, I had never heard of them.
apatzer 23-Jan-25, 08:08	Lord Shiva The Antikethyra Device can definitely be reproduced. I'm not the one who is making up stories and poor analogies to give credence to my position. Although I could make up very good stories to explain. Also I don't think that you remember some important things that I have said. So I'll remind us. Even if the Shroud was dated to the first century conclusively. We could still only say it is consistent with.
lord_shiva 23-Jan-25, 10:01	Making Up Stories You mean my explaining how the shroud was proven to be a medieval forgery? I thought it was clear the explanation simply revealed potential method and motivation, not that that was absolutely how the forgery was executed. I think both our positions are pretty clearly. Normally I am more open to alternatives. Are there other universes? Maybe. We only know there is this one for certain. As for the shroud, I am convinced it was woven between 1100 and 1200. I find the evidence convincing. You find the first century date more compelling, for all the reasons aforementioned. I think more evidence would persuade either of us the other direction. And we both agree even a first century origin doesn’t cement the shroud as that of Jesus. We have plenty of consensus. I do get the impression you feel the image is more miraculous than any simple physical process might account for. I’ve never personally witnessed a holy miracle. The everyday miracles are the germination of twenty year old radish seeds, my piñon pine tree, chicken eggs, spring, total solar eclipses, and so on. Gabriel’s horn… A formula with finite volume but infinite surface. It can contain paint, but cannot be painted. Also known as Torricelli's trumpet.
apatzer 23-Jan-25, 13:20	Please explain to me how it was """proven""" to be a medieval forgery. You make so many assumptions when it suits you. Why you provided wasn't an explanation. An explanation explains how something was done. What you offered was suppositions without any evidence, hence "stories" which is fine. I can make up explanatory stories also but I don't. <As for the shroud, I am convinced it was woven between 1100 and 1200> ~LS Oh so you think the carbon dating results were off also? Because the combined calibrated date range was 1260–1390 CE this includes the variance. I'm glad you are convinced. Also , I never said that I find the 1st century WAXS x-ray data more compelling!!! I said there are multiple things that contradict the carbon dating results that were given. The X-ray data was one of them, the pollen was another, the illustration in the Hungarian manuscript was another. You are misrepresenting or have a distorted view of my position. Analogy... It's the equivalent of me being charged with a murder that occurred at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Yet I'm at work punching in at 12:58 pm 300 miles away and have receipts from Burger King timed 12:30. It is evidence that contradicts the eye witness that said they saw me murder someone at 1 pm. I think that the image was created by a means unavailable to humans, even to this day. If I had to guess (which I haven't done so far) it is either Vacuum zero point energy burst that caused a metamorphosis. Or it is the UV that has been suggested, that is well beyond our ability to produce. I don't think that the UV is credible as it is very destructive to tissue and they are guessing. Which is all science has in regards to how the image was created. I enjoy talking to you LS.
bobspringett 23-Jan-25, 13:40	Shiva 20:34 1. <we still don’t understand how they managed their marine concrete, which we still cannot match.> Actually, we CAN. Even back when I was a pup designer (1970's), we were specifying pozzolanic concrete for the structures leading cooling water into and out of our coal-fired, steam-driven power stations because it could handle salt water. Even WARM salt water. And we can make it stronger than the Romans did. 2. <We were able to make terrestrial cement stronger than the Romans could with prestressed concrete> Prestressing does NOT make concrete stronger. It uses stronger concrete, but the prestressing is just a way of taking full advantage of that extra strength by adding compressive stress so as to counter regions of tension, because NO concrete has high tensile strength. The advantage of pre-stressing over conventional (un-prestressed) reinforcement is that if the whole cross-section is under compression then the member has the stiffness corresponding to that whole section. If part of the cross-section is in tension, it has to be assumed to be cracked, and not contributing to member stiffness. This makes a huge difference to deflections, specially under passing loads such as bridges.
jonheck 24-Jan-25, 02:28	bob How did the Romans manage to come up with their advanced concrete? Was it perhaps little more that a lucky mix of near by available materials?
bobspringett 24-Jan-25, 03:38	Jon 02:28 Pozzolans are naturally cementitious when added to lime. A bit like lime as used by bricklayers a century ago before adding cement became standard practice. So I suppose it was originally just an additive to make lime better.
lord_shiva 24-Jan-25, 12:11	Roman Cement Well, imagine you get to play with different formulations and techniques. And there is no TV, no internet, the only social activity are occasional plays, gladiator sports, and Olympic contests once every four years. “What is the secret of ultradurable Roman concrete? The oldest Roman concrete is thought to date back to around 150 BC, though some scholars believe it was developed even earlier.” Rome was founded in 750 BCE. This leaves a mere six centuries for Roman concrete workers to perfect their recipe. Is six hundred years enough time to stumble on the right mix? I like to try to imagine all the stuff going on over that period of time. The farming. Building homes. Making candles. They did not make soap. They used skigils in the bath house for scraping oils and exfoliation. Tilling the soil. Moving stones for roads and bridges. Mixing cement. The Egyptians were using cement in their pyramids for more centuries between them and the founding of Rome than exist between Rome and us. Isn’t that marvelous? Imagine your family living in the same home for six hundred years. My grandparents had a lovely home in Boise. They sold it and the woman who bought it placed stove ash into a paper sack she left against an outside wall. Burned it to the ground. My great grandfather had a lovely place on the corner of Ustick and Eagle road, west of my grandparent’s place. Subsequent owners built a meth lab there, so the property was condemned and the fire department used it for training, tearing the place apart. The place that had once sported an apple orchard (destroyed by prohibition) is now a strip mall, and a McDonald’s occupies my great grandfather’s former domicile, where my grandfather had been born in 1908. That perfectly fine place barely survived a single century.

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.