When looking at the universe, we observe not only stars, but also marks of explosions. If we define a young universe, several things we observe would be unexplained.
Justifying a young universe would be a system extremely full of contradictions. We may not observe stars forming, but we can observe them destroying themselves, and presenting nebula-like marks.
If we calculate the energy expenditure factors of star fusion reactions, we can logically not generate, through the study of stars, times in billions of years, but we cannot reduce them to values smaller than millions of years. While light analysis generates mathematical data for billions of years, stars give us values close to billions, and with other calculations even more.
Thus, defining a young universe is extremely outside the analysis of physical laws. This does not mean that the Big Bang theory is correct, it just means that the data tells us that the universe is old, and the term old is a relative term. We say that the universe would have a minimum lifespan of 1 billion years, and the maximum could be unlimited.
Why can the universe have unlimited time?Because galaxies may have been formed, or created, billions of years ago, and others may have been formed later, and so in the complex of galaxy formation in all directions, we can have the cosmic microwave background radiation.
See if galaxies are constantly being produced around, then it would be impossible to determine the beginning.
And would this be a singularity?Yes, it would be, like the big bang, it only exists in theory when a singularity develops, that is, ideas are merely a concept of faith, both the big bang and the universe in creation. Now the universe over billions of years ago does not come from a singularity, it is just analyzed data.
