it is much more likely that our understanding of the early universe is imperfect, than it is that multiple gravity wells of that strength line up perfectly. we

it is much more likely that our understanding of the early universe is imperfect, than it is that multiple gravity wells of that strength line up perfectly. we know our tools pretty well; well enough to have confidence that what is observed is actually representative of what is actually there. the confusion here is because if this formed in 13 billion years, our understanding of the formation of the universe is very flawed, and generally, scientists both do and do not like it when stuff like this is proven wrong with new evidence. they like it because discovery and increased understanding is the whole reason they became scientists in a lot of cases. they don't like it because if this is wrong, what else is wrong, and what does that mean for everything else we think we know? what gets upended because of this?