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

[bobdroege7]

No, the problem will not shrink to fit simplistic math.


No, that's not how outliers are handled in radiocarbon dating.


No, the problem is bigger than high school math. All you've proven is that using an overly simplistic method gets you a useless answer.

Radioactive decay follows a simple formula, what about that do you not understand.

Not dealing with outliers.

I have proven radiocarbon dating requires homogenous samples, which the chi^2 test as used by Damon and company to determine if the samples were homogeneous.

3 sets of samples were good, but the key one, the shroud was not homogeneous, and thus the date for the shroud is inaccurate.

 

[JayUtah]

Radioactive decay follows a simple formula, what about that do you not understand.

I understand it perfectly, including sample preparation and the statistical model that governs how decay is measured and how those measurements are interpreted across subsamples. Those concepts exist in addition to the underlying physical model of radioisotopic decay and may not be safely ignored. Your thought experiment conflates the chemical homogeneity of the specimen with the statistical homogeneity of the measurements. The Ward & Wilson test does not measure chemical homogeneity.

Not dealing with outliers.

Detecting and handling possible outliers is one role of the statistical model. It does not work the way you think it does, or the way that Tristan Casabianca insists it should. The shroud measurements do not show a uniform skew as your simplistic thought experiment implies. They show, at worst, classic outlier behavior across a series of otherwise consistent measurements, which was properly accounted for.

I have proven radiocarbon dating requires homogenous samples, which the chi^2 test as used by Damon and company to determine if the samples were homogeneous.

No, you have merely declared a simplistic expectation based on your limited understanding of the actual science.

3 sets of samples were good, but the key one, the shroud was not homogeneous, and thus the date for the shroud is inaccurate.

Then why do literally all the relevant qualified scientists disagree with you on that point?

 

[JayUtah]

I have proven radiocarbon dating requires homogenous samples, which the chi^2 test as used by Damon and company to determine if the samples were homogeneous.

You seem to believe that the Ward & Wilson test, whose results were given in the Damon et al. paper, tests the homogeneity of the physical samples. Here is your thought experiment from a previous post.

Here is the heterogeneity argument without the use of any statistics, just college algebra as taught in merican high school.

Starting with the radioactive decay equation

A(t) = A(0) e^ - (Lamda*t) where A(0) is the initial amount or activity, lambda is the quantity (ln/half life), A(t) is the amount or activity at time t, and e is e.

Take a sample with 10,000 C-14 atoms from 2000 years ago, and one with 10,000 atoms of C-14 from 500 years ago, and mix equal amounts of each.

So after 2000 years the first sample has 7851 atoms of C-14 and the second has 9412 atoms of C-14

So equal amounts of the first and second sample has 8632 atoms C-14

If you date a sample that has 8632 atoms C-14 from an original amount of 10,000, reversing the equation

ln(A(t)/A(0))/lambda then you would get a date for the mixture of 1216 years.

Therefore proving that homogeneity is crucial when it come to radiocarbon dating.

No valid appeals to authority allowed, just highschool math.

So it's not my knowledge of statistics, rather it's the whole lot of you lacking basic math skillz.

Strangely you claim no statistics is needed to understand the importance of a homogeneous sample or its effects. But you don't seem to dispute that a statistical method (the Ward & Wilson test) is the primary evidence of alleged heterogeneity you, Casabianca, and his coauthors rely upon to argue that the shroud dating must be considered invalid.

So close the loop. If the Ward & Wilson test (i.e., "the chi-squared test" you keep referring to) can detect physical heterogeneity in the specimen—as you have repeatedly argued in this thread—show us step by step how it would do so in your thought experiment above. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that statistics is irrelevant when a statistical test has been the basis of your argument up until now.

For the record, I don't see any immediate errors in your thought experiment as far as the physics goes, except that you expressed the decay constant incorrectly: it's ln(2) over half-life. I assume that was a typo. My argument is that your inability to understand why Damon et al. remains good science doesn't lie in the physics. Casabianca didn't think so either, and neither did you until you failed to learn statistics.

 

[bobdroege7]

You seem to believe that the Ward & Wilson test, whose results were given in the Damon et al. paper, tests the homogeneity of the physical samples. Here is your thought experiment from a previous post.



Strangely you claim no statistics is needed to understand the importance of a homogeneous sample or its effects. But you don't seem to dispute that a statistical method (the Ward & Wilson test) is the primary evidence of alleged heterogeneity you, Casabianca, and his coauthors rely upon to argue that the shroud dating must be considered invalid.

So close the loop. If the Ward & Wilson test (i.e., "the chi-squared test" you keep referring to) can detect physical heterogeneity in the specimen—as you have repeatedly argued in this thread—show us step by step how it would do so in your thought experiment above. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't argue that statistics is irrelevant when a statistical test has been the basis of your argument up until now.

For the record, I don't see any immediate errors in your thought experiment as far as the physics goes, except that you expressed the decay constant incorrectly: it's ln(2) over half-life. I assume that was a typo. My argument is that your inability to understand why Damon et al. remains good science doesn't lie in the physics. Casabianca didn't think so either, and neither did you until you failed to learn statistics.

Yes I did get the formula for the decay constant wrong, I put ln instead of ln(2)

I googled this

can the ward and wilson test for homogeneity

And got this response

"This test determines if two or more populations (or subgroups of a population) have the same distribution of a single categorical variable."

So yes, you can use the ward and wilson method to test for homogeneity, or if two or more populations have the same distribution, which would be required to merge the three data sets.

Further more, my though experiment was to show that if you have different ages of material in your sample, you cannot get an accurate radiocarbon date. That was what I was arguing that statistics is irrelevant for, not for the use of a statistical test to determine homogeneity.

And they still refused to release their data for almost 30 years and apparently cherry picked the data and only published part of it. Casabianca showed that they took quite a few more measurements than they published.

Still not good, like Franco is still dead.

And most current published research is on the side of the authenticists.

Maybe you can tell me why the shroud sample failed the ward and wilson test, using other than ad hom attacks about my statistical knowledge.

 

[JayUtah]

I googled this

can the ward and wilson test for homogeneity

That's too equivocal. As I said, you're confusing chemical homogeneity with statistical homogeneity, and you didn't ask your AI to differentiate.

Further more, my though experiment was to show that if you have different ages of material in your sample, you cannot get an accurate radiocarbon date. That was what I was arguing that statistics is irrelevant for, not for the use of a statistical test to determine homogeneity.

No, you don't suddenly get to decide that statistics is irrelevant. You say...

I have proven radiocarbon dating requires homogenous samples, which the chi^2 test as used by Damon and company to determine if the samples were homogeneous.

You are still claiming that "the chi-squared" test (by which we agree you mean the Ward & Wilson test) is capable of detecting heterogeneity such as that you created in your thought experiment. If that's true, then do the Ward & Wilson test on your thought experiment and show us that it does.

Maybe you can tell me why the shroud sample failed the ward and wilson test, using other than ad hom attacks about my statistical knowledge.

Pointing out that you lack the knowledge in statistics to understand the statistical argument you are making is not ad hominem. Part of that lack remains your misunderstanding that the Ward & Wilson test is a pass-fail proposition.

 

[bobdroege7]

That's too equivocal. As I said, you're confusing chemical homogeneity with statistical homogeneity, and you didn't ask your AI to differentiate.


No, you don't suddenly get to decide that statistics is irrelevant. You say...


You are still claiming that "the chi-squared" test (by which we agree you mean the Ward & Wilson test) is capable of detecting heterogeneity such as that you created in your thought experiment. If that's true, then do the Ward & Wilson test on your thought experiment and show us that it does.


Pointing out that you lack the knowledge in statistics to understand the statistical argument you are making is not ad hominem. Part of that lack remains your misunderstanding that the Ward & Wilson test is a pass-fail proposition.

There is no chemical homogeneity in my thought experiment, it is just counts.

The heterogeneity in my thought experiment was proposed as part of the experiment, I don't need to perform a test to prove it is heterogeneous. It is in the set up, two different ages of material mixed and then dated.

Statistics are irrelevant to my thought experiment, yes I do get to decide that. Or if you have to have stats in the experiment, it's there, the two samples have different counts, therefore they are different, or heterogeneous.

The ward and wilson test is not pass fail, I'll give you that, but it is valid invalid, meaning that the number calculated by Damon et al shows their results are invalid, especially since Casabianca and others have shown they did not calculate it correctly.

 

[JayUtah]

There is no chemical homogeneity in my thought experiment, it is just counts.

Your thought experiment expresses what you think happened in the shroud case. It composes a sample by mixing two substances of heterogeneous ages. That's what I mean by chemical heterogeneity. Expressing their ages in terms of counts doesn't affect the argument. Both substances start with equal amounts of ¹⁴C, but at the time the measurement is taken, one substance has aged more than the other and therefore more of its ¹⁴C has decayed away, resulting in a lower final count for that substance. But then the substances are mixed, and the resulting average count of ¹⁴C corresponds to an age that is neither of the original substances’ ages.

You claim that the Ward & Wilson test can reveal that kind of heterogeneity in a mixed sample, and you claim it did so in the shroud case. But it should also be able to do that in your thought experiment, if what you say about homogeneity and the test is true. Run the Ward & Wilson test on your thought experiment and show that the test confirms the heterogeneity you know you introduced. We're testing your belief about the statistical test, not your grasp of physics or your ability to concoct a scenario to illustrate your point.

Statistics are irrelevant to my thought experiment, yes I do get to decide that.

No, statistics aren't irrelevant. They don't stop being applicable just because you choose to ignore them. Either the Ward & Wilson test works the same as you believe for the thought experiment as it does for the shroud findings or it doesn't. You don't get to ask for an explanation of the outcome of a statistical test without talking about statistics. You don't get to demand a rebuttal that is both correct and agrees with your wrong assumptions.

The ward and wilson test is not pass fail, I'll give you that, but it is valid invalid...

No, that's just a different way of saying pass-fail. We spent months trying to teach you how that's wrong.

 

[gabeygoat]

Sorry, Y'all, but I'm forgetting what the chai tea squared thing is even supposed to be arguing. Let's say that it disproves scientists and they got the date wrong. how does that count as evidence that it's 2000 years old and from Israel? Again, I apologize, and I imagine it was answered 50 pages ago, but I'm just finding it so boring and want it to go away. I preferred Jabba's weird stuff, because it at least led to neat education by others on the subjects. This is just tedius.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, Y'all, but I'm forgetting what the chai tea squared thing is even supposed to be arguing.

The authors of the shroud dating study used a statistical test (Ward & Wilson) based on the χ²-distribution to test the homogeneity of the measurements on all the specimens, both control samples and the shroud. The χ²-value for the shroud was consistent with a 1σ confidence interval, but not a 2σ confidence interval. This is because one measurement pool from one laboratory is a statistical outlier. This means that if that pool is excluded (which is allowed), the remaining measurements are homogeneous to a 2σ confidence interval. Rather than exclude the pool, the authors used a method from chemistry based on the t-distribution to include the outlier, but at the expense of a larger final date interval. This is a more conservative method. Subsequent methods using Bayesian inferences confirm the outlier and the suitability of the original work.

Some shroud authenticists argue that the χ²-value requires the entire measurement to be regarded as invalid for the shroud. This is not how radiocarbon dating experts handle measurements that contain outliers. The argument to invalidate the results is based on an abstract statistical formalism, not on knowledge of what radiocarbon dating data are expected to look like.

Some shroud authenticists including @bobdroege7 argue that the χ²-value is evidence that the shroud material tested was a mixture of very old material and new material from a recent patch. They argue that the presence of this newer material would skew the date younger, and that the χ²-value from the Ward & Wilson revealed the mixture of samples. So in addition to arguing that the shroud study produced unreliable results, they continue to argue that the heterogeneity as measured in the Ward & Wilson test is the result of a 1st century specimen contaminated with modern material.

Let's say that it disproves scientists and they got the date wrong. how does that count as evidence that it's 2000 years old and from Israel?

It doesn't. Shroud authenticists are generally satisfied with the notion that their statistical rebuttal merely rebuts the radiocarbon date. They don't purport that it substantiates any other date or location.

@bobdroege7 has produced a thought experiment to illustrate what he thinks happened and how it resulted in an incorrect radiocarbon date. He has given it toy values, and the outcome he computes for those toy values is consistent with how the physics works. He wants the physics alone to settle the question, but that sidesteps a number of errors he's making. If we use real values with the real ages in question, the amount of modern material that it would take to skew a "real" date of 2000 years ago to 750 years ago is absurd.

Again, I apologize, and I imagine it was answered 50 pages ago, but I'm just finding it so boring and want it to go away.

This was answered several times, and we spent a good deal of time over the summer trying to teach @bobdroege7 the statistics he would need to know to understand why the shroud dating is still good science despite the outlier. He's trying to fringe reset by reasserting all his former assumptions and refusing to allow them to be questioned.

I preferred Jabba's weird stuff, because it at least led to neat education by others on the subjects. This is just tedius.

I promise this will be educational in the conventional way. But it requires @bobdroege7 to engage with the lesson in good faith. So far, experience has shown that he will not question his core assumptions. Students who do not consent to being asked simple questions about their assumptions must instead be taught Socratically.

Because @bobdroege7's thought experiment explicitly introduces heterogeneous specimens, it is perfect for testing the premise that the χ²-value produced by the Ward & Wilson test allows an experimenter who doesn't know the nature of the specimen to conclude that it was heterogeneous and therefore that the radiocarbon date he measured for it is unreliable. I have invited him to apply the Ward & Wilson test to his thought experiment to validate his belief about the test, but he will not cooperate.

 

[gabeygoat]

A+ post, Jay, I appreciate it.

 

[Mojo]

If we use real values with the real ages in question, the amount of modern material that it would take to skew a "real" date of 2000 years ago to 750 years ago is absurd.

In the other hand, if the whole thing had been replaced with modern material about 70 years ago...

 

[Susheel]

In the other hand, if the whole thing had been replaced with modern material about 70 years ago...

Like "my great grandfather's axe?"

 

[bobdroege7]

Your thought experiment expresses what you think happened in the shroud case. It composes a sample by mixing two substances of heterogeneous ages. That's what I mean by chemical heterogeneity. Expressing their ages in terms of counts doesn't affect the argument. Both substances start with equal amounts of ¹⁴C, but at the time the measurement is taken, one substance has aged more than the other and therefore more of its ¹⁴C has decayed away, resulting in a lower final count for that substance. But then the substances are mixed, and the resulting average count of ¹⁴C corresponds to an age that is neither of the original substances’ ages.

You claim that the Ward & Wilson test can reveal that kind of heterogeneity in a mixed sample, and you claim it did so in the shroud case. But it should also be able to do that in your thought experiment, if what you say about homogeneity and the test is true. Run the Ward & Wilson test on your thought experiment and show that the test confirms the heterogeneity you know you introduced. We're testing your belief about the statistical test, not your grasp of physics or your ability to concoct a scenario to illustrate your point.


No, statistics aren't irrelevant. They don't stop being applicable just because you choose to ignore them. Either the Ward & Wilson test works the same as you believe for the thought experiment as it does for the shroud findings or it doesn't. You don't get to ask for an explanation of the outcome of a statistical test without talking about statistics. You don't get to demand a rebuttal that is both correct and agrees with your wrong assumptions.


No, that's just a different way of saying pass-fail. We spent months trying to teach you how that's wrong.

Alright, I'll try a different tack, and try to get you into the right lane.

Radioactive samples decay at a constant rate, that's why it is called a rate constant.

For some isotopes we know the rate constant to 6 figures, others not so precise.

So if you have two samples and they differ in activity or amount after only an eighth of a half-life, then something is wrong.

Look at the raw data, and FOIA'd by Casabianca, you will find too much scatter in the data, as Damon and company has admitted in their paper.

" The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted." from Damon et al.

It is basically impossible, or as likely as playing risk and rolling triple sixes every time for the whole game, for two sets of samples of the same thing to be that different after only one eighth of a half-life.

Because radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, not a variable rate as found by Damon and company.

I have watched enough samples decay from too hot to handle to undetectable to know this is true.

It's behavior of the electro weak force and it is totally predictable, and if your data does not follow the expected distribution it is wrong.

Not my understanding of statistics that is wrong, it is your understanding of radioactive decay, you are out of your depth here, and so are all the defenders of Damon et al.

 

[JayUtah]

Alright, I'll try a different tack, and try to get you into the right lane.

Do what I ask and you'll find your error.

Because radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, not a variable rate as found by Damon and company.

We covered this already. You don't understand why the results must be pooled and calibrated despite my attempt to teach you. Nor do you seem to understand the effect of such things counting error in the measurement of radioisotopic decay. As much as you want high-school physics alone to provide the argument, there is much more to consider when we do real science in the real world.

Not my understanding of statistics that is wrong, it is your understanding of radioactive decay, you are out of your depth here, and so are all the defenders of Damon et al.

Your understanding of statistics is wrong, specifically in what the Ward & Wilson test measures. Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is wrong because it oversimplifies the physical processes involved and what must be done to unwind them accurately. I am a qualified, licensed engineer. I used to contract for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, specifically for the National Nuclear Security Administration tasked with stockpile stewardship. Part of my job was simulating decay in the radioisotopes used in nuclear weapons. My depth in this field is as deep as the field goes.

Your browbeating is amusing, but ultimately fruitless. The "defenders of Damon" include the physicists who invented this process. By all means keep calling them uninformed and/or nefarious compared to Tristan Casabianca who has never done any prior work in that field, or any of it aside from the shroud.

Simply do as I ask. Apply the Ward & Wilson test to your thought experiment. If what you believe is true about what the test measures, it should reveal the heterogeneity of the original specimens and you'll be able to demonstrate that your belief is correct.

 

[bobdroege7]

Do what I ask and you'll find your error.


We covered this already. You don't understand why the results must be pooled and calibrated despite my attempt to teach you. Nor do you seem to understand the effect of such things counting error in the measurement of radioisotopic decay. As much as you want high-school physics alone to provide the argument, there is much more to consider when we do real science in the real world.


Your understanding of statistics is wrong, specifically in what the Ward & Wilson test measures. Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is wrong because it oversimplifies the physical processes involved and what must be done to unwind them accurately. I am a qualified, licensed engineer. I used to contract for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, specifically for the National Nuclear Security Administration tasked with stockpile stewardship. Part of my job was simulating decay in the radioisotopes used in nuclear weapons. My depth in this field is as deep as the field goes.

Your browbeating is amusing, but ultimately fruitless. The "defenders of Damon" include the physicists who invented this process. By all means keep calling them uninformed and/or nefarious compared to Tristan Casabianca who has never done any prior work in that field, or any of it aside from the shroud.

Simply do as I ask. Apply the Ward & Wilson test to your thought experiment. If what you believe is true about what the test measures, it should reveal the heterogeneity of the original specimens and you'll be able to demonstrate that your belief is correct.

First of all, the only counting error measurable with respect to radioactive decay is the instrument error. If there is any other significant error, and there is with respect to Damon and company, and they even admitted it, then you can not ignore that when calculating a date.

"We do real science in the real world"

Yet you claim to have modeled radioactive decay, but I have claimed to have actually measured radioactive decay in the field.

It is linear as ◊◊◊◊ and does not add scatter to the mix, and Damon and company noted that there was unexplained scatter in the measurement. If they had done a proper error analysis they should have determined what the errors were.

Real measurements trump modeled measurements.

I am retired now, but since you want to pull out your dick for measurement, I was licensed to supervise those handling C-14 and other radioactive isotopes.

Now do as I say, and look at Damon and companies raw data.

I have applied the chi^2 test to my thought experiment, the answer was 141, is that high enough to demonstrate homogeneity?

It should be, because I cooked the homogeneity into the thought experiment, it is homogeneous by simple examination.

 

[JayUtah]

I have applied the chi^2 test to my thought experiment, the answer was 141, is that high enough to demonstrate homogeneity?

141 what? Show your work, please.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

141 what? Show your work, please.

141 chi squares, of course, or maybe it's square chis?

 

[EHocking]

141 what? Show your work, please.

In astrology/numerology 141 is an “angel number” which

signifies new beginnings, manifestation, and balance, urging you to focus your thoughts on positive outcomes in love (communication, mutual respect) and career (determination, creativity) while staying optimistic, using inner wisdom for new ventures, and building stability. It combines the energies of new starts (1) and stability (4), prompting you to manifest your goals with hard work and inner guidance for harmony and growth.

 

[JayUtah]

Attached is Wilson & Ward's paper that describes the method. Everything @bobdroege7 needs to show his work is on page 3 of the PDF, p. 21 in the journal numbering.

 

[bobdroege7]

141 what? Show your work, please.

Same units as in the Damon et al paper.

Shame on you.