Since space expands everywhere evenly, objects 2x as far apart recede twice as fast. It has been calculated that at a distance of 14 billion light-years (the Hubble distance), objects recede faster than light. This is OK since it is space itself is expanding. This dictates a theoretical limit to the size of the observable universe (perhaps up to 150 B LY due to the expanding Hubble radius catching up with old light rays). This size of the observable universe is entirely due to the rate of expansion. However, isn't it a HUGE coincidence that the rate of expansion matches almost exactly the best estimates for the size of the universe (also 14B LY) as determined by the ages of stars and other rate-independent measurements? In other words (ignoring expansion acceleration and other wrinkles), won't the universe always seem to be about 14B years old, based solely on the Hubble constant? Couldn't the universe be MUCH older than 14B years?