No denying that it's huge! But...
"RMC 136a (more often nicknamed R136) ... is sited within one of our neighbouring galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud, some 165,000 light-years away."
So, what we are 'seeing' is 165,000 years ago. Old news, me thinks!
Just a thought, if the universe ends and, you know, started to implode from the outer reaches inwards, how would that play out?
The Universe starts to end today. If you look through the Hubble telescope and see stars from billions of years ago, does that mean we have billions of years to wait for the "Big Crush"?
Is the expansion of the universe quicker than the speed of light and, ergo, will the theoretical collapse of the universe be quicker then the speed of light?
Thankfully, I looked at Wiki and found this article
While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe.
It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.
Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate. The prevailing view is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable"
Wish I hadn't asked now...