In 1999, the late Alan Adler, Ph.D. published a piece entitled "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin." The first part concerned the purported blood stains that he had studied with Dr. John Heller. The second part dealt with the details of the mystery, so-far inexplicable, image of a crucified man. It was not a painting. See https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/
He did in one passage use of big words, not previously known to me, that I had to look-up. Here's the passage beginning at the bottom of page 3:
"However, the most interesting characteristic of the images is revealed by computer imaging analysis, particularly that done by a VP-8 image analyzer (3,5,11,28,42). The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating image density at any particular pixel point to [4] the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this projective information transfer can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic, neither necessarily orthogonal to the receiving or sending surface."
Here's a brief glossary:
I interpret this to mean two things: the image formation process (which seem to be waves of some sort) are parallel and directed in one direction (similar to a laser light beam). However it does not mean that they necessarily hit the medium at right angles.
My inexpert analogy would be a laser sight projecting a circular spot, being pointed at a target. Normally the target is at right angles to the line of sight so that the laser would intersect it at a right angles. (orthogonal). The image on the target would be circular (orthogonal). However if the target were tilted back 45 degrees, the spot would not be circular but an elongated oval (non-orthogonal)
Why these big words matter
Why this may be important is that to the extent the formation process operated non-orthogonally, the image on the Shroud would show some distortions. This may be one reason why there is such a variance in claimed measurements. The simple version of the process would be the image projected through a taut and therefore perpendicular Shroud. To the extent the Shroud was not perfectly flat, the image would be distorted. It is likely that Shroud image contained both orthogonal and non-orthogonal properties and that is what Adler is writing.
Now my question is this. Can we determine what part of the image is orthogonal (transmitted at a 90 degree angle to the Shroud) and what was non-orthogonal: (striking the Shroud at an oblique angle)? And, can we determine that angle and correct the image?
By the way, I am not saying that image was created by a laser. I am saying that the image formation process acted similar to a laser.
He did in one passage use of big words, not previously known to me, that I had to look-up. Here's the passage beginning at the bottom of page 3:
"However, the most interesting characteristic of the images is revealed by computer imaging analysis, particularly that done by a VP-8 image analyzer (3,5,11,28,42). The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating image density at any particular pixel point to [4] the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this projective information transfer can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic, neither necessarily orthogonal to the receiving or sending surface."
Here's a brief glossary:
Collimated light is light whose rays are parallel, and therefore
will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is related to
"collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance
(ideally), or that will disperse minimally (in reality). A perfectly collimated
beam with no divergence cannot be created due to diffraction, but
light can be approximately collimated by a number of processes, for instance by
means of a collimator.
Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the
distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter
and closer to plane
waves, which are perfectly collimated.
Anisotropy (pron.: /ˌænaɪˈsɒtrəpi/) is
the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which
implies identical properties in all directions. It can be defined as a
difference, when measured along different axes, in a material's physical or
mechanical properties (absorbance, refractive index, conductivity, tensile
strength, etc.) An example of anisotropy is the light coming through a polarizer. An
example of an anisotropic material is wood, which
is easier to split along its grain than against it.
Orthogonal: Perpendicular.
My Interpretation
My inexpert analogy would be a laser sight projecting a circular spot, being pointed at a target. Normally the target is at right angles to the line of sight so that the laser would intersect it at a right angles. (orthogonal). The image on the target would be circular (orthogonal). However if the target were tilted back 45 degrees, the spot would not be circular but an elongated oval (non-orthogonal)
Why these big words matter
Why this may be important is that to the extent the formation process operated non-orthogonally, the image on the Shroud would show some distortions. This may be one reason why there is such a variance in claimed measurements. The simple version of the process would be the image projected through a taut and therefore perpendicular Shroud. To the extent the Shroud was not perfectly flat, the image would be distorted. It is likely that Shroud image contained both orthogonal and non-orthogonal properties and that is what Adler is writing.
Now my question is this. Can we determine what part of the image is orthogonal (transmitted at a 90 degree angle to the Shroud) and what was non-orthogonal: (striking the Shroud at an oblique angle)? And, can we determine that angle and correct the image?
By the way, I am not saying that image was created by a laser. I am saying that the image formation process acted similar to a laser.
