Il convegno "Sindone - La Scienza spiega la Fede" del Prof. Giulio Fanti, 21 Aprile 2012, Padova

Nella serata di sabato 21 aprile 2012 sono stata con alcuni amici ad un convegno sulla Sindone. La Sacra Sindone di Torino.

Il Prof. Giulio Fanti, docente di misure meccaniche e termiche della Facoltà di Ingegneria dell'Università di Padova si era occupato in precedenza anche di missioni e attività spaziali (nel "CISAS G. Colombo").

Coordinatore del gruppo Shroud Science, gruppo di studio sulla Sindone, il Prof ha spiegato per circa un'ora i nodi cruciali del rapporto tra la Sindone e la Scienza, per poi passare alla conciliazione delle ipotesi scientifiche e più recenti scoperte in ambito sindonologico con la Fede di chi crede che la Sindone sia il sudario di Cristo.

La Sindone, spiega il professore, è un'immagina "impossibile", perché nonostante siano stati fatti diversi tentativi di riprodurre in laboratorio un'immagina sindonica, nessun esperimento è stato in grado, fino ad oggi, di riprodurne tutte le caratteristiche. La copia di Garlaschelli ottenuta con tecniche probabilmente note anche nel Medioevo non riesce infatti a riscostruire molte delle caratteristiche microscopiche della Sindone, rendendone grossolanamente soltanto l'aspetto macroscopico.

Il metodo di datazione al carbonio 14 è attendibile solo per i reperti che non hanno subito contaminazioni esterne, ma non è il caso della Sindone. La datazione iniziale del lino compresa tra il 1260 e il 1390 non è attendibile perché il lino risulta contaminato a livello ambientale, con conseguente "ringiovanimento" dei campioni che avrebbero nuovamente assorbito carbonio dall'atmosfera (anidride carbonica con il suo isotopo radioattivo).

La datazione al carbonio 14 della Sindone NON è esatta. Infatti, una revisione di dati dei campioni analizzati a Oxford, Zurigo e in Arizona (USA) riporta variazioni di ... secoli ... in pochi centimetri di tessuto !

Secondo il Prof. Fanti:

A. La Sindone è un'immagine acheropita, cioè non è stata prodotta deliberatamente da mani d'uomo (falsario, artista o scienziato che fosse). La Sindone "si è formata".

B. Una fortissima scarica elettrica potrebbere teoricamente riuscire a riprodurre tutte le particolari caratteristiche dell'immagine sindonica.

C. La più probabile ipotesi di formazione dell'immagine sindonica si basa sull'effetto corona. Esso consiste in scariche elettriche parziali associate a due elettrodi ad alta tensione di carica opposta; determina riscaldamento e radiazione ultravioletta. L'effetto corona si genera anche nelle sfere al plasma.

L'effetto corona sarebbe stato generato dall'Uomo avvolto nella Sindone caricato elettricamente in seguito ad un fulmine (forse globulare) o al fenomeno descritto nei Vangeli in quella domenica di Pasqua. Le scariche elettriche parziali, interagendo co le fibrille più esterne della Sindone, avrebbero generato l'immagine www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/Sindone.htm .

Conclusioni: I risultati scientifici sono coerenti con i Vangeli, in cui sia afferma anche che la mattina di Pasqua avvenne un fenomeno scientificamente inspiegabile: una resurrezione da morte.

Per la scienza positivista, l'immagine sindonica è "impossibile", non è spiegabile, quindi non potrebbe esistere. E invece esiste.

L'ipotesi della scarica elettrica, dell'effetto corona e quindi della Resurrezione sarebbe quindi l'unica in grado di spiegare la formazione dell'immagine sindonica acheropita: si è generata da un'esplosione di energia.

(fonti bibliografiche: Sindone - La Scienza spiega la Fede, G. Fanti, Edizioni Messaggero Padova, 2010).


Sito del Prof. Giulio Fanti:  www.dim.unipd.it/fanti

 Articolo del Corriere del Veneto che parla degli studi di Prof Fanti sulla Sindone: corrieredelveneto.corriere.it › padova › Cultura e tempo libero

Professor Giulio Fanti teaches mechanical engineering at the University of Padua, in Italy. He is also part of the group Shroud Science.

On the 21st of April, 2012, my friends and I went to Professor Fanti's conference in Padua. He explained that the image of the Man who can be seen on the Shroud cannot be reproduced in a correct and detailed way (perfect way). So all the experimens in which scientists tried to reproduce the Shroud actually failed.

Professor Fanti says that the image on the Shroud was not produced artificially by men, but it was formed. So what formed the image of the dead Man in the Shroud? Corona discharge...

As Professor Fanti explains:

"There are two possible hypotheses of the body image formation of the TurinShroud (TS) based on corona discharge (CD). An impression mechanism based on CD proves to be the most credible one after verifying that some characteristics of the TS image are not in fullagreement with the hypothesis of a simple burst of light proposed by K. Moran and G. Fanti in 2002.

Theoretical and experimental results relative to plasma in the air are presented and discussed onthe basis of a comparison with data relative to the TS both at macroscopic and microscopic levels.Even if the environmental hypotheses relative to CD can be refined, the experimental resultsobtained show no appreciable chemical-physical differences from the image features of the TS.

[...]

The CD hypothesis explains many facts, some of the most interesting of which are: the need toassume the soft hair; that there was a radiation source normal to the skin; the absence of detectabledefects on the cellulose crystals after the energy application; the uniform color of the thin layer of polysaccharides around the linen fiber; the discontinuous color along the yarn; the 3-D information,which does not always agree with a simple body-cloth distance relation; the sinusoidal-law relativeto the luminance where the legs were; and, finally, the double superficiality of the image.The paper presented a theoretical background for the work, followed by a discussion of manyexperimental results in comparison with the corresponding data obtained from the TS. The resultsproved that many peculiar characteristics of the TS body image can be experimentally reproducedusing CD. A final discussion evidenced that many aspects that other research studies have founddifficult to explain with reference to CD effects can be explained if the involved energies are nottoo high. This must be kept in mind when considering the environmental conditions needed to haveproduced the TS image.The aim of this paper was not to completely explain how the TS body image was formed, butrather to propose an energy source based on CD and its collateral effects, such as the generation of UV rays and aggressive chemical by-products, both of which could be considered as probable bodyimage formation agents for the TS. Future detailed analyses considering all the peculiar aspects of the TS image will perhaps clarify the choice of Hypotheses 1 or 2, A or B, and shed some morelight on the open questions regarding the most important relic of  Christianity".

Read the  full text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12966495/Corona-crown-effect-on-Turin-Shroud-

Face on Shroud of Turin Evident on “Hidden” Side – “Not a Medieval Painting or Photographic Rendering”

Another interesting development with the Shroud of Turin.

Scientists examining the Shroud of Turin since the restoration that began in 2000 have found a “second face” on its reverse “hidden side,” a discovery they believe adds evidence to the argument it is not a medieval painting or photographic rendering.
As part of the restoration undertaken in the summer of 2002, the Holland cloth – the backing cloth placed on the shroud by the Poor Clare Nuns to preserve it after the 1532 fire – was removed, permitting for the first time in centuries an examination of the back side.
In 2004, Professors Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Padua in Italy published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Optics their study, “The Double Superficiality of the Frontal Image of the Turin Shroud.” They concluded there exists a second, even fainter face image on the backside of the Shroud of Turin, corresponding but not identical to the face image of the crucified man seen in head-to-head dorsal and ventral views on the front side.
The second face image on the back of the shroud was hidden for centuries, until the 2002 restoration when the Holland cloth was removed.
Fanti and Maggiolo used image-processing techniques, including Gaussian filters and Fourier transformations to highlight the extremely faint second face on the backside of the shroud, including details of a nose, eyes, hair, beard and mustache.
To the naked eye, the backside of the shroud appears to show no image whatsoever.
Like the face image on the front side of the shroud, the previously hidden image on the backside is a superficial image that exists only on the topmost linen fibers, created by the same dehydration process characteristic of the face and body image on the front.
The backside of the shroud contains only a limited ventral image of the crucified man in which a stain appears to correspond to the crossed hands seen on the front.
Fanti and Maggiolo found no dorsal image of the crucified man on the shroud’s back side.
The researchers concluded the image of the face on the backside of the shroud was not created by a process of painting in which the facial image on the front “bled through” to create an image on the reverse side.
Similarly, if a photographic process created the image of the face, the photographic emulsion on the shroud must have been applied separately on the front and reverse surfaces, without any photographic emulsion soaking through the linen fibers at the center.
The two scientists demonstrated this by noting the image of the face impressed on the backside has “some slight differences” from the front image.
For instance, the nose on the back presents “the same extension of both nostrils, unlike the front side, in which the right nostril is less evident.”
Moreover, Fanti and Maggiolo concluded “the central part of the fabric was clearly not involved in the creation of the image [on the backside] – i.e., the internal part of the linen fabric does not have an image.”
The researchers, other words, found a “doubly superficial” face image on both the front and back sides such that “if a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle.”
The shroud, therefore, they concluded, was not created by paint soaking through the linen or by a photographic image printing through to the reverse side, because the front and back facial images are not identical and the center fibers show no image creation whatsoever.
Fanti and Maggiolo concluded the shroud image was created by a “corona discharge,” understood as a radiant burst of light and energy that scorched the body image of the crucified man on the topmost fibers of the shroud’s front and back sides, without producing any image on the centermost of its linen fibers.
“Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices; each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell,” writes Daniel Porter, editor of ShroudStory.com. “The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin.”
Fanti and Maggiolo found the faint image of the face on the reverse side of the shroud contained the same 3D information contained in the face and body image of the crucified man seen on the shroud’s front side.
The current Exposition of the Shroud in Turin, underway until May 23, is the first time the Shroud of Turin has been displayed since the 2002 restoration.
The back side of the shroud is not being shown for public observation; a new backing cloth has been sewn on to replace the Holland cloth, hiding the reverse side once again.

 http://worshippingchristian.org/blog/?p=11033 visited on May 8th, 2012.

Image Source: www.raydowning.com visited on May 8th, 2012.