Indeed, your syntax did not change the result, it changed the comprehension of your statement.
Also, I didn't make a mistake since it couldn't possibly affect the outcome . Here's an example:
I have to derive the constant 100, but I instead derive the constant 101. I get the value 0. Did I make a mistake? No, because any constant derived is 0. Such is the case with your dilemma here, the speed exceeds the speed of light. It doesn't matter by how much, it's still impossible. The outcome wasn't affected.
All of that aside, again, I ask you, would I be able to physically travel to "nowhere"? I want you to think about this.
Think about it, traveling implies movement through space, and what with there being no space outside the universe, you can't travel outside of it (if that's what you meant by traveling to "nowhere").
If it's just another weird analogy to the universe "expanding into space", just watch the video I shared already, it's very comprehensible even if you don't even have the basics of physics
You got the simple linear math problem wrong, just admit it.
I don't know anyone else who would have been confused about my syntax choice.
You're at fault here. You. Everyone reading this can see it, and you are making yourself look like an arrogant fool by not being able to admit you were wrong. To say "the outcome wasn't effected" is just entirely false.
Here:
I say there are 56 apples to hand out to the 17 children.
So, (Number of Apples) / (Number of Children) = Apples per Child.
Then you come along. Keep in mind that I've already listed the absolute values of these variables.
You say:
5 / 17 = 0.2941176470588235 Apples per Child.
The children cry. You throw the other 51 apples, because they don't matter.
See where you went wrong? I realize that you still won't be able to admit it, but it's okay. Let's move on from that.
I've watched the video, but it's wrong.
It's as wrong as general relativity.
It's as wrong as saying that something can effect nothing.
The simple error in comprehension you're having is that you don't understand that expansion cannot exist without some space.
If space-time is expanding seemingly infinitely, that means that there's a seemingly infinite amount of [ether-less, matter-less, energy-less] space.
I like how you completely knocked off the idea that there are variants of the multiverse theory that support my viewpoints, after you told me I wouldn't understand anything having to do with any multiverse theory. This just makes me believe that you're trying to belittle me because you have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't think about things. You simply type "tell me how th3rm0m3t3r0 is wrong" in Google, and start copying and pasting videos and Wikipedia articles that support your viewpoint. That's called being bias.
I'd suggest you look at all the information I've presented in this thread. Read the lecture about ether by Einstein.
Maybe Google something along the lines of "is there space outside the universe" instead of "there is no space outside the universe".
Just an idea.
Beside all that, you need to define universe. Like I've said, if you would like to define the universe as "all space and all of existence", then simply imagine the "container" as part of the universe.