So from my understanding SR loosely tells us that time is not constant and that depending on our motion relative to another observer will dictate our differences in rate of time. I was wondering what SR tells us about the expanding universe. In cosmology we're taught that the universe is expanding and that massive objects move away from us at an accelerated rate, moving faster and faster the further away they are from us. If we're to imagine the universe as a soup of individual systems and different perspectives of relativity, how do we imagine the overal essence of time? As the furthest objects away from us move faster and faster, time must tick differently for those massive objects than it does here on earth. If we were to imagine Earth as system 1 and we were to observe the furthest galaxy away from us in the observable universe as system 2, system 2 is moving away from us at an accelerated rate and thus is altering its passage through time at a faster rate than we are. If we were to imagine the destruction of the universe from Earth's perspective, wouldn't system 2 experience the destruction of the universe before system 1 since it is accelerating away from us and altering its passage of time relative to us? However on the flip side, if I was positioned in system 2 wouldn't Earth experience the destruction of the universe before system 2 since it too is accelerating away at a faster rate? Couldn't we then conclude that I am indeed the center of the universe no matter where abouts in the universe I am? It seems a paradox to me and I assume is an oversight in my thinking, I'd be curious to hear what SR actually says about the universe and where my logic is going wrong. Perhaps I'm making assumptions about the age of the universe and what the destruction of the universe actually is, giving it a finite moment in time that must be the same for all systems and something which is reached via time travel. I'm very puzzled by this, I've never thought about this before and it is beyond my basic knowledge of physics.