Isochron radiometric dating wikipedia Text to fuck

Throughout this process, they all go on showing exactly the same time.

Is it plausible that we have damaged their very different internal mechanisms in such a way that they are all running fast or slow but still in perfect synchrony?

If this does not completely prove that radiometric dating is correct, it does at least show that (barring a wildly improbable coincidence) there is at least a one-to-one relationship between the dates produced by radiometric methods and the true dates, and so it must be taken as an argument in favor of these methods.

It is possible to test radiocarbon dating by using it to put a date on historical artifacts of known date, and to show that it is usually very accurate.

Science, since it concerns just one universe with one set of laws, constitutes a seamless whole; we cannot unpick the single thread of absolute dating without the whole thing beginning to unravel.

Still, it has happened in the past that scientists have thought they'd got hold of a law of nature and then found out it was false.

The polarity of the Earth's magnetic field is a global phenomenon: at any given time it will either be normal everywhere or reversed everywhere.

What is more, we can measure the rate of spreading directly by GPS, SLR, and VLBI.

In Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, La-Be, La-Ce and K-Ca dating, we check that the points we plot on the isochron diagram lie on a straight line.

These precautions allow us to throw out most data that have been produced by confounding factors such as atmospheric contamination, weathering, hydrothermal events, metamorphism, metasomatism, etc.

It is hard to think that this is a coincidence; it is also hard to think of any mechanism that could produce this agreement other than that the rocks are as old as radiometric methods tell us.

We began our discussion of absolute dating by saying that sedimentation rates could not be relied on for absolute dating.

429

Leave a Reply