So you disagree with Planck? I see how you`re trying to tie this together with photons being light/radiation, I think. I`m just not sure where you`re headed.
as for these two dating methods:
Please remember (you may have known) carbon 14 dating (for fossils/living things) Is only accurate to 70,000 years, assuming the amount of light striking the earth`s atmosphere has remained the same. from scientific study of the sun, 70,000 years is a conservative estimate of reliability for this dating method.
Radiometric dating, for elemental matter (rocks) is based on radioactive decay, which should not be affected by photons. Rocks are dated to the time they were formed (when they cooled from molten).
You can`t use this method to date biological remains unless they have been encased in sediments, along with minerals such as potassium. (The sediment would date to the time of it`s formation, which would be long before it broke down into sand/dust. minerals would give us a more accurate date)
yes dating is rough, but the older it is the less the variation matters to the estimated age.
Don`t forget, these are but two dating methods I highlighted, suppose we had 5 different dating methods indicating a discovered human bone was at least 50,000 years old?
You would believe a book containing tales of impossible feats written 2000 years ago by some middle eastern storytellers, yet this is too much of a stretch? I Truly don`t understand this enigma.