2 added 82 characters in body
source | link

How do archaeologists address time dilation when analyzing carbon dating results?

They don't. There is NO point in doing so. Compare two hypothetical substances at the peak of Chimborazo (the highest peak in the world with respect to distance from the center of the Earth). Suppose one of those substances spent all of the last 4.5 billion years at several thousand meters above sea level, while the other spent almost all of the last 4.5 billion years at the center of the Earth before migrating to the top of Chimborazo. That's the very worst time dilation possible. The substance that spent almost all of its earthly existence at the center of the Earth will be a couple of days younger than the other substance.

AThat couple of days difference over a span of 4.5 billion years is the worst case. ThatThis is many orders of magnitude smaller than otherthe statistically significant experimental errors. ItThe error induced by relativistic effects with respect to carbon dating is an unmeasurably small difference.

How do archaeologists address time dilation when analyzing carbon dating results?

They don't. There is NO point in doing so. Compare two hypothetical substances at the peak of Chimborazo (the highest peak in the world with respect to distance from the center of the Earth). Suppose one of those substances spent all of the last 4.5 billion years at several thousand meters above sea level, while the other spent almost all of the last 4.5 billion years at the center of the Earth before migrating to the top of Chimborazo. That's the very worst time dilation possible. The substance that spent almost all of its earthly existence at the center of the Earth will be a couple of days younger than the other substance.

A couple of days difference over a span of 4.5 billion years is the worst case. That is many orders of magnitude smaller than other experimental errors. It is an unmeasurably small difference.

How do archaeologists address time dilation when analyzing carbon dating results?

They don't. There is NO point in doing so. Compare two hypothetical substances at the peak of Chimborazo (the highest peak in the world with respect to distance from the center of the Earth). Suppose one of those substances spent all of the last 4.5 billion years at several thousand meters above sea level, while the other spent almost all of the last 4.5 billion years at the center of the Earth before migrating to the top of Chimborazo. That's the very worst time dilation possible. The substance that spent almost all of its earthly existence at the center of the Earth will be a couple of days younger than the other substance.

That couple of days difference over a span of 4.5 billion years is the worst case. This is many orders of magnitude smaller than the statistically significant experimental errors. The error induced by relativistic effects with respect to carbon dating is unmeasurably small.

1
source | link

How do archaeologists address time dilation when analyzing carbon dating results?

They don't. There is NO point in doing so. Compare two hypothetical substances at the peak of Chimborazo (the highest peak in the world with respect to distance from the center of the Earth). Suppose one of those substances spent all of the last 4.5 billion years at several thousand meters above sea level, while the other spent almost all of the last 4.5 billion years at the center of the Earth before migrating to the top of Chimborazo. That's the very worst time dilation possible. The substance that spent almost all of its earthly existence at the center of the Earth will be a couple of days younger than the other substance.

A couple of days difference over a span of 4.5 billion years is the worst case. That is many orders of magnitude smaller than other experimental errors. It is an unmeasurably small difference.