Even in a limited size universe that is a sphere, though the center at a given point and circumference somewhere we would be at the circumference and center would have a new, different actually because a point on the circumference is what center refers to, meaning.
I'm not too comfortable injecting a notion of age. Too many unknown factors, (motion with gravitational forces, friction, though we might not expect that) and a good chance of quantum physics playing a big roll at the beginning which would make even the known not understandable any way. As far as time the best chance is in learning that the measurement of time we use would have given different results early on. Not only the bible tells of thousand year old people. People that might have lived the same amount of time as us, if the motion and spin of the earth had nothing to do with measuring time, but instead a concept of time as a universal constant instead of earth based on an assumption of constant in variables such as motion.
Clocks are a constant though (at least based on a vibrating crystal, which is fine if that vibration is in reality a global constant and not in tune with that motion cycle based time). If space-time is too, someone will figure it all out. A faster spinning earth which is unlikely would just make years with a lot of days, but a faster orbit, likely, with the process of obtaining and settling in and the weak forces that would settle it in, would make a lot of years in a lifetime for a long time.
My original point is that if it is bigger than thought then it is older than thought and that light would be here. None of it actually points out that you can't have a big bang AND measure time using where light is coming from now. The origin of it would have been right here, with us (this) at the start. it could have taken a trillion years for those bodies to travel to a point where the light would travel back 14 billion years. And if the expansion was not faster than the speed of light the light would have never been and will never be out of range.
And if we are one of those expanding elements, not the point of the big bang, any measurement of light hitting the earth is meaningless for anything beside observing neighbors. Nothing overall.
Another notion of mine with absolutely no basis is that the motion might not be expansion (overall, and without a big bang) but other motion which might make our observable part an expansion inside a number of motion effects like undulation, chaotic, boil, and others. Something like this seems to have to be the case with a universe that does have an observable limit but is any bit larger. (That all light no matter how far should be visual without faster than light expansion)
So if I knew for a fact that there was a big bang, and that we are where that happened, I would take the 14 billion year age as another axiom.
If it was to stop moving now and not move for 2 billion years, the measurement would still be a 14 billion light-year size, not 16 and thus the age estimate would be the same (14 billion years) 2 billion years later as well.
Or would time stop if expansion did? What if orbital motion, the clock, continued?
