Ok, there are 2 things here:
1. The big bang created hydrogen and little else, gravitational collapse caused the first generation stars to shine.
In theory, no one has observed this. And it is not testable.
However, that is the current theory, of which the wiki has ample material on how such was theorised, and what evidences are used.
In the cores of these stars heavier elements are synthesised in two processes:
a. Nuclear fusion for elements of atomic weights up to and including iron,
b. Supernova for elements higher than iron.
The elements released from these first generation stars supernova (and all subsequent stellar formation) make up the matter in the universe today. So thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a rather large chunk of the 18 billion to 4.5 billion taken care of.
The supposed time that passed to achieve this is neither provable, or testable. Only that supposed matter dates that old. Dating does not equal actual time passage unless you would like to claim that age dating has become a absolute. In which I could easily prove that wrong.
Also there are more elements in the universe then what nuclear fusion, or a Supernova, can fuse pass. Unless you would like to show evidence for fusion that makes all elements that exist today possible? I'd like to see it as evidence, not in theory. Almost anything can be theorized.
. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure if you are arguing against nucleosynthesis as a mechanism or that time does not or did not, run at a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœconstant speedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. If nucleosynthesis is the argument there is ample data on the internet (but as far as stars go, Spectroscopic analyses of stars and supernova provide the evidence). If your question is about time axiom of consistent time I would think it would not help any argument anyway for two reasons:
1. If time periods are variable, then how matter and light behave would be consistent in that time period, i.e. from an observer in fast or slow time matter and light behave the same, thus all our measuring equipment would still give the same results.
2. If time passes is nether provable or testable then what ever theory you come up with to counter the status quo is equally invalid! Unless of course you have some way of measuring the passage of time while simultaneous being outside of it.
Also what did you mean with,
there are more elements in the universe then what nuclear fusion, or a Supernova, can fuse pass
2. Radiometric dating is a comparison of the ratio of original material you are measuring, against what ever it decays into. See the wiki. So if the radiometric material is eroded out and reburied, the Ã¢â‚¬ËœclockÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is reset as the decaying elements must be built up again. The axiom here is offcourse that radiation decay half-lives are, and always have been, constant.
It's only a constant when it supports old earth. The half life of polonium halos have been questioned only because they support young earth through the quick formation of granite rock that contains them.
did you mean radioactive half-lives of Polonium? - from the wiki
Polonium has 25 known isotopes, all of which are radioactive. They have atomic masses that range from 194 amu to 218 amu. 210Po is the most widely available. 209Po (half-life 103 years) and 208Po (half-life 2.9 years)Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.
you seem to be referring to a specific example of Polonium half life with which IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not familiar and will need a reference so as to reply. I should point out that radiometric dating is not restricted just to the element Polonium but in theory any radio active element.
No, matter from the big bang is envisaged to precipitate out of raw energy (like ice melting into water) as the universe cooled. As the universe expands that cooling would be felt evenly (no layering), it quite literally would have been a Ã¢â‚¬Å“let there be darkÃ¢â‚¬Â event.
The layering was an example, not an absolute. I did not claim that I believed this. I was merely demonstrating how the materials contained inside a universe that is supposed to be 18 billion years old, are not even related to it in age dating.
I see. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m a bit of a fan of Ã¢â‚¬Å“thinking out loudÃ¢â‚¬Â myself, it helps to organise ones thoughts.
And how do you get matter that cools down billions of years slower than another of almost the same make up. When the temps in space is always absolute zero? And it does not even go along with how close the matter is to a star. Some planets close to stars are cooled down more than planets further away that are still hot and molten. So that does not even work.
ok Ã¢â‚¬Â¦. The initial cool down of the big bang is not the same thing as matter cooling down due to physical processes like thermal conduction or thermal radiating. The post big bang creation of matter is a change of state
(like ice to water), caused by the finite amount of radiation (very hot) occupying a bigger volume (space expanding), at some critical volume, the temperature becomes low enough, and matter Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcondenses outÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (like water on cold glass).