approximate assumption

As Einstein stated, it was an approximate assumption made while deriving a specific solution to his equations. It allows for picking a frame that makes the math easier, but it does not make that frame "special" as you are presenting it. Also if you actually bothered to read the paper you referenced, you would see that his assumptions were incorrect for our universe, since the universe is expanding. In fact the last sentence you quoted was immediately preceded by:

Indeed, many years were to elapse before the discovery of a linear relation between the recession of the distant galaxies and their distance (Hubble 1929), the first evidence for a non-static universe.

The entire paragraph it was a part of was explaining that our modern knowledge that his assumptions do not describe our universe was not available to Einstein, so his assumptions were reasonable from his perspective. By pulling that sentence out of context you completely changed its meaning.

If you read the paper then you know that solution was only lacking the cosmological constant which he adds later. This doesn't change the frame work in which he lays out his conditions (density, stars with low velocity that define a metric, closed universe, 𝜆).

No, if you read the paper you certainly did not comprehend it. the assumptions Einstein used were wrong and the paper explained why. The cosmological constant is necessary to have general relativity allow the solutions Einstein came up with, but later Einstein denounced the cosmological constant because it was found that the solution of a static universe does not describe our universe, and his assumptions were wrong. It was only determined to be necessary for opposite reasons (accelerating expansion measured) after his death.

Your statement here does not even address the points that I made in my post.

expansion of space sounds a lot like expansion of a metric.

This is a tautology, a metric is how you describe the shape of spacetime.

It also seems to suggest the matter generates the metric.

This is part of one of the most basic explanations of general relativity. The distribution of matter determines the curvature of spacetime. However, Einstein's statement "In my opinion, the general theory of relativity is a satisfying system only if ..." seems to be what you are basing this on, even though this quote is from a criticism he made of someone else's solution to the GR equations, when his criticism was actually what was wrong.

All I am suggesting is that this proper metric generated by the low velocity stars gives a metric of fastest time progression. Moving relative to is distorts your time so that your time passes slower and gives the illusion of a distorted metric via your distorted clock. You will notice in the graphics of the moving ship that its the non-distorted metric where time passes faster.

Every sentence in this quote is wrong. There is nothing special about the frame of those stars other than the math being easier, but this is inapplicable to the universe we live in anyway. Your description that clock rates all must be relative to this frame is the exact opposite of the principle of relativity, and therefore contradictory. Your final statement simply confuses things because you are then seem to be talking about spacetime diagrams in special relativity, and neither frame has a distorted metric in that case. In fact they have the exact same metric. Also, neither is the "one" that has its axes tilted, because you can validly and symmetrically draw either frame as the one with the straight axes.

With that said, I reiterate the idea that an ftl jump, when one is moving,

The phrase "when one is moving" makes your entire statement wrong. There simply is no special frame in reality to measure motion relative to, and that is the basis of relativity. (We have already covered in this thread that if you define some special frame that a magic FTL drive must move forward in time in then paradoxes are avoided)

I wouldn't be so quick to just dismiss them as crackpots. It is relevant with respect to possible detection of motion through some form of a metric.

...

Several citations on their work it appears.

There didn't seem to be any citations on the first paper you posted. There are multiple things indicating that they fall somewhere on the crackpot spectrum:

-discussing a situation clearly described by GR and only mentioning GR once in passing, never comparing their results to GR.

-They refer to c^4/G as the "Kostro constant" a term only they seem to use. (The constant itself shows up in the Einstein field equations, but doesn't need a name)

-9 citations for that new paper is not exactly a stunning endorsement (some were from themselves).