A couple problems I have just in the first few minutes of your video.
1. You are conflating "heaven" with the New Jerusalem which St. John describes in vision in the Apocalypse; except that the text doesn't say the New Jerusalem is "heaven", John says he saw the New Jerusalem descending down from heaven. Though even more problematic is the mere assumption that this is a literal city at all; we are talking about the Apocalypse here, which by its name should give clear indication that the literary genre is apocalyptic--which is why it uses a bountiful amount of colorful language and imagery: mentioning dragons, beasts, locust monsters coming out of a bottomless pit, different colored horsemen, judgment described as bowls, etc. The imagery of the New Jerusalem falls firmly within this apocalyptic language, its description gives us some clues as to its meaning and significance: it is described as being arrayed like a bride for the Lamb, it is mentioned as comprising twelve foundations with twelve gates, its size is absurdly immense, in it is the tree of life, and a river running right through the city which carries the leaves of the tree of life to "the nations".
2. You are making the common mistake in thinking that Hebrew thought only had three heavens--it didn't. Hebrew thought had seven heavens. The significance of the "third heaven", in the 2nd Temple period was that it was the location of Eden/Paradise. In the pseudepigraphical work of 2nd Enoch, the eponymous Enoch is given a tour of celestial wonders (making this work an apocalypse, just like St. John's Apocalypse) in which he is taken to the third heaven where he encounters Eden, Paradise. As a Jew living in the 2nd Temple Period, St. Paul was very aware of these things, so when he talks about knowing a man who was taken into third heaven and who saw mysteries and Paradise this is precisely the context in which he is stating these things. Further, attempting to identify the "first heaven" and the "second heaven" as the sky/firmament (those aren't the same thing by the way) and outer space is simply not the biblical/Hebrew paradigm, that is a deeply anachronistic re-imagining of things from a modernist perspective attempting to shoe-horn modern cosmology into ancient near eastern cosmology--it doesn't work. Certainly "the sky" was included in the phrase "the heavens", but the ancients had no knowledge of the shape of the earth, of the atmosphere, and the relative position and relationship of the earth to celestial bodies--the sun, moon, and stars; these are all things we understand today due to our growing understanding of the universe.
Ultimately my problem with your video boils down to the fact that it is a deeply flawed misunderstanding of the biblical and ancient view of things.
And, more importantly, the Christian does not hope to go to heaven. The Christian hopes in the resurrection of the body at the coming of the Lord on the last day, when God makes all things new, and renews all creation. The intermediate state, between death and resurrection, is not our hope; our hope is in the resurrection and the renewal of all things--of that glorious life of the Age to Come.
-CryptoLutheran