How you define the word Sky will be your limit.
You may have heard the idiom “The Sky’s the limit.” What originally was to indicate no limits can change depending on how one understands the word Sky.
If you think of it as a firmament, a sort of boundary, then you may be limiting yourself.
The Sky, the atmosphere, is comprised of the gasses held by the earths gravity. When you look up you see into space. When you look at the moon it you are seeing something 238,900 miles away. On starry nights, light from light-years away is collected by your eyes and translated into your mind. Light that could be from stars long gone. Essentially some sort of time travel by looking into the past of the fastest thing we know of. The time travel angle can give the idiom a secondary meaning that the past, or in the least how you view the past could be a limit.
I do not see the sky as a ‘limit.’ It is a limit to certain tangible things such as whether we can breathe unassisted, if typical combustion engines could work, whether conventional sound waves can be transmitted to how much radiation we receive in what is at the same time a massively inhospitable to human life universe we find ourselves in, yet very likely the only one human life could have developed in (percentage wise, hell even the earth is mostly inhospitable… 75% water, anyone reading this have gills?). There are limitations based on what you want to do, but depending on your knowledge, none on what you can do.
Why add artificial limitations to what the Sky is. How often do we do this? Limit ourselves and our perceptions. It may be more than you think. It isn’t limited to the irrational handicaps you give yourself, but general changes in the definitions and words we use.
What do you mean when you say what you say? Who controls your definitions? Do you understand that merely uttering similar sounds or typing/writing similar curves, lines and dots as the people around you in no way guarantees you are communicating in the same language?
This is something I am constantly aware of. I am closer to those whom hold similar definitions and wary of those that do not value definitions. You know the kind. People that when convenient will say X does not mean it’s currently nebulous definition but instead it’s actions, and can easily switch to discounting actions done in the name of X due to it not fitting their suddenly rigid adherence to it’s definition.
I like words to mean what they mean.
This video by Neil deGrasse Tyson gives a good visual of just how massive space is. His comments on Stephen Hawking point out another subject that fascinates me, projection.
The start of the video is a lil meh, as even if the material used in the opening may have happened organically, that science has to be ‘hipped’ up to make it appealing to viewers is very ‘meh’ inducing. I am doubtfully on the cutting edge of hip and still find the things included to be a little old and wonder if they were going for some ‘we are nerdish-retro-hip’ angle.
That videos of this kind have a low view count compared to those in the millions, says a lot about society. Once you understand the reasons behind that… well I am pleasantly surprised to how well the world is doing, despite the general populace. Imagine a world where the view counts of this are reversed with something as banal as any viral animal video or middling popularity.