Sam Wormley wrote:
There is more than one way to estimate the age of the universe.

Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

New Age for the Universe

30 Jun 2005 - This week's Nature has a letter giving a new determination
of the age of the Universe based on the age of the isotopes. 238U and
232Th are both radioactive with half-lives of 4.468 and 14.05 Gyrs but
the uranium is underabundant in the Solar System compared to the expected
production ratio in supernovae. This is not surprising since the 238U has
a shorter half-life, and the magnitude of the difference gives an estimate
for the age of the Universe. But the production ratio is poorly known from
nuclear physics models, so Dauphas (2005, Nature, 435, 1203) combines the
Solar System 238U:232Th ratio with the ratio observed in very old, metal
poor stars to solve simultaneous equations for both the production ratio
and the age of the Universe, obtaining 14.5 +2.8/-2.2 Gyr.

So this would indicate the very first Type II supernovas to have
occurred. How many years after the Big Bang would they expect the first
supermassive stars to have formed, and how many years later would they
be expected to explode?

Yousuf Khan