On the Rationality of the Resurrection 1.9.0

Abstract Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead? One way in which this question can be answered in the positive that doesn’t depend upon faith alone is by appeal to history, or to written accounts of what occurred in 1st century Judea. But it is arguable that this style of answer must, by itself, always fail to be rationally acceptable simply because resurrection is -it would seem- physically impossible. In order for this style of argument to be rationally acceptable, this barrier of the physical impossibility of resurrection must first be removed. If it is not removed, the arguer will if pushed be left more or less helplessly waving their hands in the direction of the supernatural. The Shroud of Turin potentially provides the only better line of argument, but is vulnerable to the same objection. In this note, we examine the nature of the failure of these arguments for the resurrection, and go on to suggest that the apparent physical impossibility of resurrection arises from an incomplete understanding of the physical world.



A quick search on the internet will quickly reveal the existence of a wide spread belief  amongst Christians that the apostles of early Christianity were martyred:

“Matthew – sufffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

Mark – died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.

Luke – was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.

John – faced martyrdom when he was boiled in huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

Peter – was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross. According to church tradition it was because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.

James the Just – the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller’s club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.

James the Greater – a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael – was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed for our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia where he was flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew – was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

Thomas – was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the sub-continent.

Jude, the brother of Jesus – was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.

Matthias – the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

Barnabas – one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

Paul – was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.”

Then the argument will often be advanced that there must be -or there is likely to be- truth to the basis of Christianity because “How can anyone place so much trust in something or someone unless they have personally experienced and truly believed that it’s the truth or it’s real?” Putting aside the martyrdom of the apostles is doubtful (Eusebius wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica (1) in about AD 325, centuries after the fact, and his sources are in many cases doubtful), the counter-argument is that, while the willingness to be martyred for one’s beliefs shows that one holds dear to those beliefs, it does nothing to show that the beliefs are true. A counter-argument might be that, where the basis of the belief-system is the apparent death and resurrection of a person with whom one was personally, acquainted, it is less easy to fall prey to the passionate adoption of a belief system than it is, for example, if that system is an abstraction such as Marxism. I mean, I’m not going to be very easily persuaded that my late best friend Phil has come back from the dead, unless he really comes back from the dead, but while I have no experience with fox-hunting, I am quite persuaded that it is wrong to hunt foxes for sport… This is a fair point, but assuming the truth of the idea that these men were indeed eye-witnesses to the aftermath of the death of Jesus, the powerful objection arises that the dead don’t rise, and so that in a best case scenario they must nonetheless have been mistaken. There is really very little in the way of a come back to this objection that depends on history alone. Resurrection “expert”, Dr Gary Habermas’ argues in this way:

(1) If the bible is the word of God, then Jesus resurrected;

(2) If the bible is merely a reliable historical document, then Jesus resurrected;

(3) If the bible is not a reliable historical document, then Jesus resurrected;

(4) Therefore, Jesus resurrected. (2)

Premise 3 is false -premise 2 is arguably false also- because of the defeaters: “Whatever contravenes the laws of nature cannot occur.” and  “Resurrection contravenes the laws of nature.”

David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (3):

But suppose, that all the historians who treat of England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died; that both before and after her death she was seen by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with persons of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament; and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended death, and of those other public circumstances that followed it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that it neither was, nor possibly could be real. You would in vain object to me the difficulty, and almost impossibility of deceiving the world in an affair of such consequence; the wisdom and solid judgement of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which she could reap from so poor an artifice: All this might astonish me; but I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.

This emboldened statement of Hume goes to the heart of skeptical objections to the occurrence of miracles, and in particular to the resurrection. To the possibility of the resurrection, the skeptic says with Hume:

…the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.

Is this position a reasonable one? Yes and no. The first counter-argument for the believer is that, while the general truth of the principle of the uniformity of nature is required for the continuity of experience and for science, it isn’t the case that this rules out the miraculous and the resurrection. Ironically, Hume himself argued that our belief in scientific laws -and hence the underlying principle of the uniformity of nature- is merely a habit of mind. This stance was born of his empiricism, his commitment to the idea that empirical accessibility is a condition of a knowledge, and the clearly non-empirical basis of the principle. Like other deep-lying principles, the principle of the uniformity of nature is, not something that can be observed to to apply – rather it is a condition of the possibility of observation- and like all comprehensive forms of skepticism, Hume’s radically empiricist philosophy leads to conclusions that undermine the truth of this philosophy itself, and show that empirical accessibility is not a condition of knowledge. One wonders how Hume could have been so foolish as to a) believe in his philosophy and b) so neglectful of the contradiction between that philosophy when it comes to the principle of the uniformity of nature and the question of the possibility of the miraculous: if the former is merely a habit of mind, then what’s to say that it isn’t merely a bad habit? This is how a counter-argument might go, but it isn’t a strong counter-argument. Unique events might conceivably occur, but if we’re intellectually honest, we will admit that almost every event that is claimed to be outside the bounds of the principle of the uniformity of nature is to be dismissed as illusory. If the dining room table disappeared, it did not grow legs and walk away, and a no less likely as an explanation for the the disappearance of the body from the tomb in the rock is the possibility that a corpse came back life.

This is not the way to defend the resurrection to Hume or to a Skeptic. It is true that we can’t leap blindly to the conclusion that the apostles must have been mistaken -may be they weren’t mistaken- but the objection that they were very probably mistaken is very powerful. There are those, such as Gary Habermas, that argue otherwise, but there is no number of sources, and no amount of historical evidence, that is going by itself to make the resurrection thesis rationally plausible for the broadly Humean reason that physical laws as know them do not under any circumstances -we all know full well- permit people who die to come back from the dead.  We must therefore presume that anyone -such as Peter or Paul -claiming that they have seen dead man alive at a time following his death is either lying or mistaken. Any explanation is better than resurrection. The preparedness of the early Christians to be martyred for their commitment to the resurrection? Irrelevant. It is much, much, much more likely if conventional physics be our guide that the apostles were for whatever reason wrong simply because people don’t rise from the dead anymore than tables grow legs and walk. It should be clear to even to the most fanciful amongst us that there is a seemingly unstoppable powerful force at work in the universe such that in an overwhelmingly large number of instance prevents the reversal of the arrow of time from occurring. Habermas’ entire argument for the resurrection can be disposed in a few well-chosen words from Sherlock Holmes:

Once you eliminate the impossible (resurrection) whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

No, the (only) way to successfully defend the thesis of the resurrection to Hume or to the Skeptic -as opposed to successfully defend it to the choir of fellow believers or intellectually naive individuals- is to argue that the apparent dis-uniformity represented by the resurrection isn’t a dis-uniformity, but only failure to understand what the true laws of nature are. When you think that the laws of nature are a, b, c, and a, b, c don’t allow for resurrection, but a, b, c together with d do allow for resurrection, then there is no Humean or scientific argument from uniformity or from common experience against the possibility of the resurrection to be made. It is here that the importance of the Shroud of Turin is revealed. This is a 14.3 foot by 3.7 linen cloth bearing the faint double-image (ventral and dorsal) of a naked man who appears to have been crucified (together with burn marks and water stains resulting from fires, one in 1532). There is a puncture wound on his left wrist (his right wrist is hidden from view), and there are puncture wounds on his feet as if they were pierced by a nail or nails. The back of the man is covered with over 120 scourge marks, apparently imposed by the roman instrument of torture known as the flagrum (a whip with two or three thongs to which were attached small balls of lead). There is a large puncture wound on the right side between the ribs from which blood and a watery serum have flowed. The image resides only on top-most fibrils of the threads with which the Shroud is woven, and it is a negative image. Although very faint when viewed as a positive, the image becomes much clearer when darks and lights are reversed.

In 1978, a group of 40 scientists known as STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) performed an intensive series of tests on the Shroud. Many were skeptical and expected that they would quickly discover it to be a fake, but after three years of analyzing the data they collected they wrote in their final report:

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

In 1988, 3 laboratories carbon-dated samplings of a sample taken form the corner of the Shroud (Rae’s corner) and judged this same sample to have been produced with 95% confidence between 1260 and 1390 AD. This period coincides with the time that the first known expositions of the Shroud are made in the French town of Lirey in 1355. Large crowds of pilgrims converged on Lirey and medallions were struck to mark the occasion. The findings initially limited the popularity of Shroud research, but from the beginning, the question wasn’t if the carbon date was right but why it was wrong, for the Shroud clearly predates 1260. If the medieval date is right, then this implies that the Shroud is a forgery, when all the scientific evidence we have other than this date implies that it is not a forgery: the image on the Shroud was not drawn or painted (there are no binding agents or particulates on the Shroud in the region of the image);  it is a negative created at a time when photography didn’t exist, but  it is not a photograph (it contains 3d information that photographs do not), it is not a contact print (parts of the Shroud that were not in contract with the body bear impressions as clear as parts that were in contact with the body); the man in the Shroud has truly been subject to horrific and mortal injuries; he has wounds associated with crucifixion, and the exit wound on the wrist contradicts depictions of the crucifixion in medieval art, but reflects the way in which people must really crucified; he is covered with scourge marks clearly inflicted by the roman instrument of the torture known as the flagrum, and he has puncture wounds on his head consistent with the wearing of a roughly prepared cap of thorns rather than the elegant  wreath of thorns depicted by medieval artists; there is a large wound on his right side which matches a spear used by roman executioners and from which postmortem blood and a watery serum (visible only by ultraviolet fluorescence photography) have flowed; the blood on the Shroud -that of real man- contains a high level of bilirubin, a substance associated with severe physical trauma; there are no signs of decomposition, meaning that body was removed from the Shroud within a few days; the Shroud contains traces of pollen from plants growing only in the area of Jerusalem, some of which are extinct since antiquity, and there are microscopic traces of dirt at the foot of the man in the Shroud that only match limestone found in the area of Jerusalem, and so on, and so on. None of this is sufficient to point to the resurrection we have the defeater of the impossibility of rising from the dead, but in the words Dr John Jackson, the founder of the STURP team

…it is conceivable that the Shroud image presents, if you will, some type of “new physics” that ultimately requires an extension or even revision of current concepts. (5)


It might be that a simple piece of cloth, known as the Shroud of Turin, represents a valid case for rethinking certain concepts of modern science. (6)

This is an age of faithlessness and materialism, and Habermas himself – perhaps the world’s most outspoken proponent of the resurrection lacks faith and depends on (weak) historical arguments for his belief in the resurrection. When faith fails -and in educated circles it clearly has failed- and we need something rational that can compel us, we must turn, not to the history of the early church and the commitment of Christianity’s founders or any other historical consideration, but to the Shroud. The human mind is deeply irrational -it has in particular has a tremendous ability to deceive itself when a line of belief contradicts something to which it is deeply committed- but any deep and intellectually honest study of the Shroud will reveal it to contain an overwhelming amount of forensic evidence implying beyond reasonable doubt that the cloth was the burial garment of a deceased roman crucifixion victim who perfectly satisfies the biblical description of the historical Jesus of Nazareth and who somehow discarded this cloth before decomposition could occur. This is harder to explain that the historical data, but without faith we would still be forced to conclude that there can have been no resurrection, and that there is an alternative explanation of the phenomena, but for the fact that of a coherence between these phenomena (and the historical data) and the existence of physical principles in virtue of which many things, including the image on the Shroud and the resurrection, can be explained according to scientific laws. Physics as we have been taught it tells us that resurrection is impossible, and there is no getting around that by appeal to history or any other discipline – physics, it can be said, trumps history, and Hume was quite within his rational rights to say that he would rather dismiss stories of the miraculous as knavery or folly when they go against physical laws- but all bets are off when a story goes against a particular set of physical laws but coheres with a more complete set. A rational account of the resurrection can only come from a scientific theory that explains the resurrection, not from any other discipline; physics -not history or forensics- is the stumbling block of belief in the resurrection. Habermas’ arguments are well-intentioned, he has reached the right conclusion, but he can’t defend his view before a court of Humean skeptics because he has nothing with which to answer the skeptical objection that the dead do not rise. The evidence of the Shroud is even more compelling and yet the skeptical objection remains – the dead do not rise. I say that the dead do rise, not because of ancient historical reports, or because of forensic properties of an ancient burial garment, but because a physics that makes sense of the universe shows how the dead can rise without breaking any physical law.


John Jackson writes of the cloth-collapse explanation of the image on the Shroud (6):

The concept of a cloth falling into the underlying body region and receiving an image, in essence, requires that two separate assumptions be made. First, we must assume that the body became mechanically “transparent” to its physical surroundings and, second, that a stimulus was generated that recorded the passage of the cloth through the body region onto the cloth as an image. With regard to the latter assumption, it is unclear in an a priori sense what to assume for the physical nature of the stimulus. However, we at least know that it was able to interact physically with cloth; otherwise, image discolorations would not have been formed. I propose that, as the Shroud collapsed through the underlying body, radiation emitted from all points within that body discolored the cloth so as to produce the observed image. (6)

Critics of the authenticity of the Shroud (such as David Kyle Johnson Ph. D. who writes a Psychology Today blog) (7) have, mixed in with the usual ill-considered pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientific objections, some legitimate observations:

Just looking at the Shroud also establishes that it is not legitimate. First, the image in the shroud looks nothing like what Jesus would have actually looked like; first century Palestinians were not that tall (false, the vagaries of the cloth make it impossible to determine the exact height of man in the Shroud, but based on excavations in Galilee, this was not unnaturally far beyond the average for that time and place of 5’9) (8), did not have that kind of hair or beard, or even that kind of nose. Instead, the image is more typical of how Jesus came to be depicted in art in the 14th century (false, the image is typical of how Jesus was depicted since the 6th or 7th century AD because these images were based on the image on the Shroud).

And speaking of the hair, the long hair seen in the shroud defies gravity.

It is parallel with the man’s body, as if he is standing, instead of falling to the back of the head as it would if was the body were lying flat (true)…

Shroud enthusiasts – “shroudies,” as they like to be called – insist that the image on the shroud was produced by some kind of energy (like radiation) emitted by Jesus’s body as he rose. But the image on the shroud could not be produced by such an event. (A) Radiation can’t leave an image in cloth (false). (B) Even if it could, since radiation emits in all directions, at best it would just leave a blurry silhouette, not a clear cut face with features (false). (C) Even if it could produce a clear cut face with features, that face would be distorted. A cloth wrapped around someone’s head lays flat against their nose, eye sockets and ears. If someone’s face somehow ‘radiated’ and recorded an image on such a cloth, when flattened out the cloth would depict whole representations of each part – nose, eye socket, and ears – all pointing in the same direction (true, assuming the presence of gravity)…

Cloth-collapse models simply can’t account for various aspects of the body-image -notably the undistorted nature of the frontal and dorsal images- but the late artist Isobel Piczek provided the hint of a theory that can (9). She noted:

  • The lack of anatomical distortion of the naked Body projected on the Shroud.
  • It is clearly visible on the Shroud Images, especially on the Dorsal Image, that the muscles of the Body are not crushed and flattened against the stone bench of the tomb.
  • The Body is hovering between the upper and the lower sheet and there is NO TRACE OF GRAVITY.

  • The lack of gravity is also further proven by the Shroud linen. The linen does not fall on top of the Body, but remains in its unnaturally stretched condition at some distance from the body.

And while her theory doesn’t really make sense in terms of the theory of gravity that has come down to us from Einstein (10, 11), General Relativity itself doesn’t really make full sense either. At root of GR is the idea that mass curves space-time, and the fact that this is a half-truth is suggested by the implication of multiple singularities (12), the lack of a coherent mathematical framework for both large scale and small scale objects (13), and by the flat rotation curves of distant galaxies (14, 15). It readily takes us back to an initial condition of the universe such that all the mass of the universe is compressed to a point, and this same infinite compression of mass is, by the terms of the theory, also to found at the centers of black hole. But the singular nature of the initial condition of the universe represents the beginning of the time, while the singularities at the centers of black holes in some sense represent the end of time, and these forms of curvature should therefore be quite distinct. More particularly, it should not be the case that both are attributable to the infinite action of the force of gravity. This is the theory breaking down, and a sign of a false assumption. There is much talk of the big bang versus the big crunch, but since both these states are associated with infinite gravity, General Relativity paints a picture of the universe that begins and ends in an identical state when, very clearly, there is throughout the universe as we know it an arrow of time leading from an energetic contracted state to an exhausted expanded one. If we give up this (bad) idea that curvature is due to mass (which is a combination of light and space), and employ instead the idea that curvature is due to imbalances of light and space (where the classical world is balanced, the atomic world is unbalanced in the direction of light, and black holes are unbalanced in the direction of space), we will find that we can solve this and other problems. Mathematically, we capture what it is to be balanced, and what it is to depart from balance, thereby producing curvature, by re-expressing the tradition equation for a circle of area 1 (\pi \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi }}^2=1) as

\lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}}}\right){}^2=1

Where the traditional equation fails by implying that an energy source located at the center of this area unit-circle is undiminished from center to circumference (it has either a zero or an infinite radius), the second provides us with a potentially infinite hierarchy of energy levels that are necessarily non-infinite and non-zero. Given that gamma is a spacial case of \zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1} for s = 1, we can go from \lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}}}\right){}^2=1 to the more general

\lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left((s+1) \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)}\right){}^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right){}^{s+1}\right)=1

Let s = 12, and let

\left(\frac{e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}\right)^2}{\hbar =e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^7 \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^7 \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2}\right){}^{1/s} = the critical line/radius on the right hand side of which curvature in the direction of light is non-classical.

If we look at the non-classical of the critical line, we see the following series of quantized jumps goes on forever within bounds related to the Gibbs constant (which limits the size of the overshoots of Fourier sums at jump discontinuities) (16).

Since it is the differences between the partial sums/integrals and the limit that protect against the degeneration of a cosmic spiral into a circle with no radius (a point), or the degeneration of this spiral into a circle with infinite radius (a line), we know that these differences have minimum and maximum sizes. More particularly, we know that if and only if s = 1 and

e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right)^{s+1}=e^{2 \gamma } \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{2 \gamma }}}^2=1

then the progression associated to

\left(\frac{e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{\frac{1}{s-1}-\zeta (s)}\right)^2}{e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{\frac{1}{s-1}-\zeta (s)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(\exp \left(-\left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)\right){}^2}\right){}^{1/s}

is potentially infinite. In the case of s = 1, the difference between the partial sum/integral and the limit is always larger than the critical line, but if s is a positive real number greater or less than 1, then the difference is sometimes not less than the critical line where s > 1, and in both cases the progression is strictly finite. These two directions leading away from s = 1 give us two distinct notions of imbalance, and of curvature. Given that the fundamental state of the universe is infinite light, it follows that if s > 1, then the imbalance is in favour of light, and if s < 1, the imbalance is in favour of space.

Let s = 0.9, and let

\left(\frac{e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}\right)^2}{\sigma }\right)^{1/s} = the critical line on the right hand side of which curvature in the direction of space-gravitational curvature-is non-classical:

Polar plots of

e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (12)-\frac{1}{12-1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(\exp \left(-\left(\sum _{n=1}^{p_x} \frac{1}{n^{12}}-\int_1^{p_x} \frac{1}{n^{12}} \, dn\right)\right)\right){}^2


e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (0.9)-\frac{1}{0.9\, -1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(\exp \left(-\left(\sum _{n=1}^{p_x} \frac{1}{n^{0.9}}-\int_1^{p_x} \frac{1}{n^{0.9}} \, dn\right)\right)\right){}^2

on the non-classical side of the critical line:

Since the initial condition of the universe is, in this model, massless -since it involves no space and time, and an infinite concentration of light- it follows that absolutely speaking light has no speed, and that the apparent speed of light is due to the expansion of space. The principle that

  • light is propagated in straight lines at the velocity c regardless of the state of motion of the emitting body

is in a suitably balanced classical region equivalent to the principle

  • space expands in straight lines at the velocity c regardless of the state of motion of the body in space

It follows from the switch from the usual space-centric perspective to the light-centric perspective, that any departure in the speed of an object from the speed of the uniform expansion of space -c- requires the action of a force. So when an object is at rest or moving uniformly (when it is not departing from the speed of the uniform expansion of space), it will for obvious reasons remain that way unless acted upon by a force. This gives us an objective notion of uniformity and explains the principle of inertia. Recalling that balanced classical regions are governed by the equation \lim_{x\to \infty } \left(e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2\right)=1 – and therefore by the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (17) – we can deduce Newton’s laws of motion:

  1. Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
  2. Force is equal to the change in momentum (mV) per change in time. For a constant mass force = mass times acceleration.
  3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (18)

c can be tied to the fundamental physical constants using the language of the new model by reference to the fine structure constant – \alpha. The recommended CODATA value of \alpha is

\frac{7.29735}{10^3}=\frac{1}{137.036}=\left(e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (12)-\frac{1}{12-1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^1 \frac{1.00009}{1^{12}}-\int_1^1 \frac{1.00009}{1^{12}} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2\right){}^2


\alpha = the fine structure constant

e = the elementary charge

\epsilon _0 = the electric constant

\hbar = the reduced Planck constant

k_e = the Coloumb constant

\mu _0 = the magnetic constant

R_K = the von Klitzing constant

Z_0 = vacuum impedance

and it follows that

\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\left((4 \pi ) \epsilon _0\right) (c \hbar )}=\frac{\left(e^2 c\right) \mu _0}{(4 \pi ) \hbar }=\frac{e^2 k_e}{c \hbar }=\frac{c \mu _0}{2 R_K}=\frac{e^2 Z_0}{(4 \pi ) \hbar }=\left(e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (12)-\frac{1}{12-1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^1 \frac{1.00009}{1^{12}}-\int_1^1 \frac{1.00009}{1^{12}} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2\right){}^2

There is a difference of 0.0000127295 between the recommended value of \alpha and \left(e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\zeta (12)-\frac{1}{12-1}\right)}\right)^2-e^{2 \gamma } \left(e^{-\left(\sum _{n=1}^1 \frac{1}{1^{12}}-\int_1^1 \frac{1}{1^{12}} \, dn\right)}\right){}^2\right){}^2, but this value has changed over the decades, it is dependent on many assumptions, and positive and negative variations in \[Alpha] of one part in 100, 000 are suggested by data on quasar absorption lines (19).

Along with the physical constants, and the other forces, we can deduce gravity from this notion of uniformity. Gravity is the force -it is the curvature of space resulting from an imbalance of light and space in favour of space- which causes an object to depart from a state of uniform expansion in the direction of accelerated expansion. This is the direction of the arrow of time, and of death. In order to halt this inexorable flow and to go in the reverse direction – in the direction of de-accelerated expansion and the direction resulting from an imbalance of light and space in favour of light – it is necessary that gravity first be suspended.

Izabel Piczek:

We have stated that there is a dividing line, a real INTERFACE between the projection of the Frontal Image and the Dorsal Image that was, no doubt, created by the Body wrapped into the Shroud.


1) The hermetic separation of the two images Frontal and Dorsal without any overlap.

2) The lack of anatomical distortion of the naked Body projected on the Shroud.
– These both indicate that the Shroud was forced absolutely taut and precisely parallel with some kind of horizontal entity running in the center.
-Also is apparent the presence of an inner Enclosure, AN ISOLATED SYSTEM, with all that this Isolated System would indicate or even enforce.

3) It is clearly visible on the Shroud Images, especially on the Dorsal Image, that the muscles of the Body are not crushed and flattened against the stone bench of the tomb.

4) The Body is hovering between the upper and the lower sheet and there is NO TRACE OF GRAVITY.

5) The lack of gravity is also further proven by the Shroud linen. The linen does not fall on top of the Body, but remains in its unnaturally stretched condition at some distance from the body.

All the above tell us that the INTERFACE indicated is not an ordinary Interface. Judging by its qualities it has to be an EVENT HORIZON that blocks every communication between the two sides of the Image.

Let us see what is usually indicated by an Event Horizon and how does that relate to the Event Horizon of the Shroud:

An Event Horizon is a critical line or a radius that divides Space-Time into two distinct regions. The exterior region one can experience, but the region beyond the critical line or radius one cannot experience. The critical line marks the path of the last light pulse that still reached the Event Horizon and Time itself slowed to a halt. Looking at the critical line from the other side Time and events gain almost infinite speed and one could see the whole history of the Universe, past present and future rapidly passing to an arbitrary end.

Ordinarily Event Horizons are tied to Gravity and Time, until they both, Time and Space cease to exist in a Black Hole, the end product of the process and gravity suffers a catastrophic collapse.

Does the Interface Event Horizon of the Shroud lead to a Black Hole?

Everything on the Shroud indicates that the answer is NO. It is here that we face the most substantial paradox of our investigation. A paradox of that magnitude one cannot solve all at once, but one can assemble everything that is known so far and get closer to the magic door opening through the Shroud into a startlingly different world.

We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.


Entropy decreasing can produce energy levels powerful enough to replace gravity while leaving other gravity-like effects in place, as the Event Horizon. This has to be studied further. It promises some very new results.

The upper region of the Isolated System of the Shroud has one Event Horizon, H1, that serves as a boundary of the Upper Region and there has to be an Event Horizon, H2, that is boundary to the Lower Region of the closed system. There is no space region but infinite density between the two. The two Boundaries can be looked at as one. Because H1 and H2 move so close to each other that they look as one, makes them eventually disappear, causing a total collapse of the Time quantum to ABSOLUTE ZERO TIME.

The total Space and Time breakdown to zero exposes that what was in the heart of the now collapsed Event Horizon. Not a Black Hole, but a very special kind of SINGULARITY, similar to the one that once assisted the creation of a universe, our own…

As indicated by Isabel herself, these ideas don’t quite make sense in the light of the General Theory of Relativity, and/or The Standard Model of Particle Physics -but then these theories fall as far short of being able to explain the Shroud as they fall short of being able to explain the universe- but they make perfect sense in the light of the theory illustrated below:


Wolfram Mathworld (20) defines a projection in this way:

A projection is the transformation of points and lines in one plane onto another plane by connecting corresponding points on the two planes with parallel lines. This can be visualized as shining a (point) light source (located at infinity) through a translucent sheet of paper and making an image of whatever is drawn on it on a second sheet of paper.

But a “(point) light source” is the same thing as a zero-dimensional light source, which involves the infinite concentration and the zero diffusion of light. The problem with the Wolfram Mathworld definition of projection, and with every physical theory that relies on multiple zero-dimensional point-sources, is that these involve an infinite concentration and zero diffusion of light, when in our experience light is always finitely concentrated/diffused. The solution -and the theory proposed here- is that the universe is a holographic projection arising from combinations of artificial atomic point sources such that the gaps between the natural and artificial sources correspond to angles and positions of the planes that allow for light to arise from a finite concentration and to undergo non-zero and non infinite-diffusion according to the equation

\lim_{x\to \infty } \, e^{(s+1) \left(\zeta (s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)} \left(\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left((s+1) \left(\sum _{n=1}^x \frac{1}{n^s}-\int_1^x \frac{1}{n^s} \, dn\right)\right)}\right){}^{\frac{1}{s+1}}\right){}^{s+1}=1

and within which the fundamental physical constants are encapsulated. A central aspect of to this projective arena is the constant and accelerating expansion of space, and the mechanism of the resurrection involves the local halting this expansion and withdrawing an object from the arena – reverse engineering. At first consideration, this is physically impossible, and it is physically impossible for a classical computational process. But it is possible for a quantum computational process. To see what I mean, consider a problem lying on the borderland of computer science, logic, maths, philosophy, and physics known as “P versus NP” which concerns the question of whether the class of decision problems whose solutions are quickly verifiable (NP) by a computer is the same as the class of problems that are quickly solvable by computer (P). Historically the problem arose because certain problems seem to be hard to solve – more particularly, they seem to require a lot of time -an exponentially growing amount of time- to solve. An example of an NP problem that seeming takes exponential time is Factoring. While it doesn’t take long to factor 15 or 21, imagine trying to factor the 200 digit integer


It can be easily on checked that it divides evenly into the primes




but although it takes a pocket calculator a spit second to do the multiplication, it would take a single 2.2 GHz computer roughly 75 years to do the division. We can establish a link between computational the arrow of time there is here by considering the Travelling Salesman Problem, which is he problem of whether a salesman can visit a number of cities exactly once and return to a home-city for a certain cost. First we transform TSP into a problem of whether a computer (salesman) can execute some number of instructions (visit some number of cities) which executes every instruction exactly once (visits every city exactly once) before returning to a halt state (home-city) for some maximum cost. An arbitrary computer is therefore working on the problem of whether an arbitrary computer will halt when run with an arbitrary set of instructions, and thus the point will be reached when the evaluation is a self-evaluation, i.e. the point will be reached such that the computer is attempting to determine of itself if it will halt. If we associate to every city an instruction, this self-evaluative point will be reached when the number of cities on the tour is not less than the number of instructions in the program. This leads to a contradiction in the case that the number cities is greater than the number of instructions.

TSP then involves a limit on the number of cities, from which it follows that TSP differs from the quickly solvable problems in P, which aren’t sensitive to the size of the input, and that P and NP are not equal.

The figure below depicts the mathematical machinery that maintains the rough balance of concentration and diffusion that exists in our universe at root of which there is a gap between the natural and artificial light sources.

As the gap narrows, light is concentrated, as it widens, light is diffused, and the there is a natural direction arising from the acceleration of the expansion of space toward the widening of the gap and diffusion which is the basis of the various arrows of time. Now if we identify this gap with the difference between a program and a TSP problem, we can tie this mathematical machinery to the field of computer science, and observe that if and when the difference between program and input is critically small, the program can’t run the input without reversing the arrow of time. Hence we can identify the cosmological arrow of time in virtue of which the expansion of space is accelerating and light is being diffused with a computational arrow of time in virtue of which certain problems are easy and others are hard. Computer scientist Scott Aaronson has suggested (21) that the inequality of P and NP protects certain fundamental physical laws. Suppose, he says, you set your computer working on an exponentially hard NP problem while you board a rocket ship that accelerates up to the speed of light and returns to earth only after the calculation has been completed. In space-time this might be an hour or so, but in earth time it might be millions of years.

This is a form of the Twin Paradox (22), and the paradox is a fallacy arising from the failure to see that RH forbids such an extreme difference in the balance of prime-density and sparsity of arithmetic progressions and therefore between conscious observers, but Aaronson’s point is that, while the time to make the computation has apparently become polynomial, the energy requirements of the rocket ship are exponential, and so this is an illusion. What has as it were been gained on the roundabout has been lost on the swings.  Or suppose that you have a computer whose first operation is performed in 1 second, the next operation in 1/2 a second, the next in 1/4 of a second… and so on. Theoretically this computer has within 2 minutes performed an infinity of operations.

This is a form of one of Zeno’s paradoxes (23), all of which involve the same fallacious failure to distinguish between repetitive and unique divisions, and to see that space and time can only be divided into a strictly finite number of unique sections. Aaronson’s point is that the energy requirements of the cooling required to run a computer chip at this speed are exponentially great, and so that exponentially cannot be avoided. Again, the inequality of P and NP protects certain natural laws, and conversely, the equality and P and NP unprotects these laws. More particularly, the inequality of P and NP reflects the inability of a classical computational process to reverse the direction of the cosmological arrow of time. We can further our argument by considering the question of whether the square root of the number of cities in a TSP problem is greater than the largest prime factor of the number of instructions in a computer program, from which arises the question of whether the computer in question can run the TSP problem in question in finite time. The computer can run the TSP problem in finite time if and only if the square root of the number of cities in the TSP problem is not greater than the largest prime factor of its number instructions, for if the square root of number of cities is greater, then than the number of cities is greater than the number of instructions in the program. Thus TSP is transformed into Factoring, which means that Factoring isn’t in P. But in 1994 Peter Shor introduced an algorithm (24) which shows that quantum computers can factor integers in polynomial-time (Factoring is in BQP which is the quantum version of P), it follows that quantum computers are able to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial-time and reverse the direction of the arrow of time.

This is what we need to remove the general barrier of the physical impossibility of the resurrection – resurrection is impossible for a classical computer, but it is not impossible for a quantum computer. And we can be more particular: superficially speaking, the image on the Shroud was caused by the oxidation and dehydration -the discoloration- of the top-most micro-fibers of the cloth comprising the Shroud, an effect that has all of the hall marks of having been caused by a brief burst of high-frequency radiation. Effects similar to those seen on the Shroud have been achieved by irradiating linen cloth with protons (25), and with ultra-violet light (26).

We have seen reason to accept that the beginning-state of the universe was one of pure light, and the bible teaches that Jesus could take on the form of a being of light, something be did both before and after the resurrection. Before the resurrection, he was transfigured on the mount of Olives. Mathew 17: 1 – 2:

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

And after the resurrection he appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. Acts 9: 1 – 9:

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

He was not in these situations governed by the arrow of time that governs things in our world, and whilst it is impossible for any classical computational process to avoid this limitation -and therefore impossible using man-made technology to duplicate the image on the Shroud- it is possible for a quantum computational process. The ability to reverse-engineer the universe thus violating the apparent laws the laws of nature is precisely the thing that Jesus was most well-known for during his life (walking on water, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead etc.), and in this he was unlike any other biblical character, and unlike any other character in human history. A body existing in a naturally light-dense state, or a body undergoing such a reversal, produces a greater than normal amount radiation, and this explains the nature of the transfiguration, the incident on the road to Damascus, and the resurrection and the formation of the body-image on the Shroud:

After these considerations, and only after these considerations, we return to the historical argument with a physical explanation of why history suggests that the resurrection took place, of the strangest and most widely studied artefact in all of human history, and the true identity of the most famous and influential man in all of human history. There is for those that are prepared to contemplate it a perfect harmony between the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, the historical facts surrounding his death and the aftermath thereof, the image and other forensic features of the Shroud and the history of that garment, and the laws of physics.

Download .pdf


(1) Eusebius (1842) Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History)

(2) Habermas, G (1976), The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry

(3) Hume, D (1748), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

(4) Conan-Doyle, A (1890), The Sign of Four

(5) Jackson, J (1990) Is the image on the Shroud due to a process heretofore unknown to modern science?

(6) Jackson, J (1991), An unconventional hypothesis to explain all image characteristics found on the Shroud image

(7) Johnson, K, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take

(8) Meyers, E, et al (1981), Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel

(9) Piczek, I, The Event Horizon of the Shroud of Turin

(10) Einstein A. (1916), Relativity: The Special and General Theory

(11) O’Connor, J (1996), General relativity

(12) Wald, R (1997), Gravitational Collapse and Cosmic Censorship

(13) Wald, R (1984), General Relativity

(14) Rubin, V et al (1980), Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122kpc)

(15) de Swart, J. et al (2017), How dark matter came to matter

(16) Zhou, Z (2002), An observation on the relation between the fine structure constant and the Gibbs phenomenon in Fourier analysis

(17) Davenport, H (2000), Multiplicative number theory

(18) Newton, I (1687), The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

(19) Webb, J et al (2010), Evidence for the spatial variation of the fine-structure constant

(20) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

(21) Aaronson, S, Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable

(22) Crowell, B (2000), The Modern Revolution in Physics

(23) Salmon, W (1970), Zeno’s Paradoxes

(24) Shor, P (1995), Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer

(25) Rinaudo, J (1999), Image formation on the Shroud of Turin explained by a protonic model affecting radiocarbon dat­ing

(26) Di Lazzaro, P (2015), A Ray of Light on The Shroud