[unstman]

If the age of the Universe is based on the detection of ' visible matter ', would this be a true reflection of the age of the Universe if matter only makes up 4% of what the Universe is comprised of?

Would it be fair to base the age of the Universe on such little data ?

Could the expansion of space and time be a separate phenomena and matter is just a consequence of that expansion, giving the impression the Universe, from the perspective of matter, was created? In other words, space and time has always been there, and possibly an affect of dark matter/energy may have caused the Big Bang?

Is Dark Matter/Energy the definition of space and time or are they, like matter, just another form of matter/sub-atomic particle/energy/field, we have not yet identified, within that space?

If space, it is believed, is expanding faster than the speed of light at the outer most limits of what we can see in respect to matter, what would be the distance between the edge of that expansion of space, if indeed it is happening, and the first elements of matter?

Are we implying the further we look into the Universe, based on matter, the faster that matter is travelling, thus, potentially, matter travelling faster or at the speed of light? How can we say space is travelling faster than the speed of light when we are basing this, I presume, on the speed or matter? This seems to be a contradiction here if we are to believe matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light? 

How can we, in affect, imply that if space is expanding faster than the speed of light, would matter ever reach a time where it would be travelling faster than the speed of light or would this never happen no matter how large the expanse of space was happening. Would the expansion of space be infinite?

Could it be that space and time has always existed, and the expansion of matter is giving the illusion space and time is expanding, when it is really matter? How can we be 100% certain space is expanding based on the movement of matter, even if we take into account the red shift? Are we basing the light/red shift from matter and nothing else, and concluding space is expanding from this?

Taking matter out of the equation, what evident do we have space is expanding and at what rate? 

[evan_au]

How can we be 100% certain..

For may of your questions, we cannot be 100% certain - they are questions beyond the edges of our knowledge.
- All we can offer are the theories of professional cosmologists and physicists - call them "educated guesses".
- Over time, more data may become available which makes some of these theories more likely, and others less likely (and perhaps, exclude some completely).

How can we be 100% certain space is expanding based on the movement of matter

Edwin Hubble, working in the days before space flight, was limited to the visible spectrum that passes through Earth's atmosphere with fairly low attenuation. All he could work with was visible matter.
- There was no detection of neutrinos from astronomical sources
- There was no proof of black holes
- There was no experimental evidence of gravitational waves
- There was no radio astronomy, or knowledge of CMBR (these developed after WW2)
- There was little knowledge of nuclear fusion, which powers stars
- Hubble started his career by actually categorising galaxies; it was only in the 1920s that astronomers generally agreed that there was matter beyond our own galaxy.

And yet, working within the limitations of visible light, Edwin Hubble was able to demonstrate a velocity/distance relationship, which could be extrapolated backwards to a Big Bang.
- This confirmed the earlier speculation of Georges Lemaître, who deduced a Big Bang from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
- This has been confirmed by subsequent observations, including space-based measurements by the Hubble Space telescope
- And we expect more information from the James Webb space telescope, which is more sensitive in the Infra-Red, where the light from the most distant galaxies will be found (due to extreme red-shift)

See more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

[Bill S]

https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2018/01/supermassive-black-holes-control-star-formation-large-galaxies?et_cid=6223892&et_rid=517749120&type=cta&et_cid=6223892&et_rid=517749120&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2018%2f01%2fsupermassive-black-holes-control-star-formation-large-galaxies%3fet_cid%3d6223892%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dcta 

This may not address the OP directly, but is interesting info about BHs.