The deeper point of the article is, using the information you provided, André, that Spacetime is not applicable to the universe. It is incorrect to find a truth at a specific level and then applying that to the overall level. That is the essence: the words we can use for that overall level are all non-functional.
--
Einstein did not focus on time or space when he presented the world his spacetime framework. He focused on the anomalies seen among the behavior of matter while moving through space. His feet were based on matter, and applying the discovered truths to the whole of everything is inappropriate. No one can stand on space or spacetime.
The truth is actually quite simple.
Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang, so he did not incorporate the fastest motion that matter is involved in. He did not capture the most important motion of matter. Einstein simply did not even consider it (later on, Gödel did look wide and far, and Einstein agreed that Gödel’s proposal was possible, an alternate perspective to Einstein’s framework).
Therefore, spacetime is applicable as a framework only to star system and galaxy. It cannot be applied to the universe, that is the whole point.
Take the Milky Way. It's structure can be modeled from the CMBR point on to its current situation.
The energy that ended up being the Milky Way is not from the center of the materialization process because that would entail invoking the all-inclusive level as functional, which is something we cannot do.
Rather, the energy of the Milky Way derived from an area not too far away from the CMBR, located exactly in the right spot to be catapulted outwardly, and all its energy doing two necessary things:
1. Moving in the exact same direction.
2. Moving at the exact same speed.
There are margins to deal with here, so the word ‘exact’ needs to be understood as: not in any other directions, and as: not at different speeds.
The Milky Way information cannot be applied to the universe. However, it can be applied grosso modo to all other material collectives in the universe.
The model of the universe is therefore a model of all these models. They are all self-based at their own levels.
--
I like that you used the term ‘universal’ which is different. It does not mean ‘of the universe’ but rather ‘applicable universe-wide’.
The periodic table, for instance, will be true universally. Alien cultures may have a few potential cultural modifications in organization, but the essence will be true universally.
Also, an alien coming to Earth will pick ‘blue’ from the color book we present the alien about the sky in the daytime. That is then a universal truth. The content is the color blue, and the color book is then the context.
As such, ‘universal’ confirms that we are dealing with something specific, true everywhere, whereas ‘universe’ does not. Universe does not declare ‘true everywhere’ because the word simply is a word. It is the name tag for all there is.
--
The point of my article is to show that we cannot use the context and have it be functional. It is the contents that is functional.
Every time you take a step toward the context, you must call yourself back if you want to investigate a function.
Thank you for sparring with me here. I appreciate that.
