Similarities relative and absolute dating
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?
Or is it more likely that they are synchronized because nothing that's happened to them has affected their working?
A Tradução Simultânea é realizada em uma cabine à prova de som, realizada de forma oral, onde um intérprete ouve o que é dito em um idioma através de fones de ouvidos e, por meio de microfones ligados aos receptores dos participantes, transmite as palavras do orador em outro idioma.
Cabine Acústica | Central de Tradução Simultânea | Rádio de Tradução Simultânea Digital | Transmissor FM.
A MEGA EVENTOS conta com a tecnologia mais avançada no mercado de tradução simultânea.
Ela tem sido utilizada em congressos e palestras de pequeno a grande porte.
(I specify uncalibrated dates because as radiocarbon dating is calibrated against dendrochronology, the agreement of calibrated radiocarbon dates with dendrochronology is inevitable.) Now, each of these three methods relies on a different underlying physical process: radioactive decay, outwash from glaciers, and the growth of trees.
We can hardly suppose that there is some single mechanism which would interfere with all three of these very different processes in such a way as to leave the dates derived from them still concordant.
We also see close agreement between dendrochronology and uncalibrated radiocarbon dates.
Based on the known rates of deposition, we may therefore at least say that the depths of marine sediment found on the sea floor are consistent with the ages of the igneous rocks beneath them as produced by radiometric dating.
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.
So if our methods of radiometric dating are correct, then we would predict that rocks dated to the same age would have the same polarity, which they do.
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.Are we to believe that one single mechanism interfered with the decay of radioactive isotopes, the secretion of calcium carbonate by molluscs, and the action of the tide? But are we instead to believe that three separate mechanisms interfered with these processes in such a way as to leave all the dates concordant? The straightforward explanation for the concordance of the dates is that they are in fact correct.