Iapitus The Impaler said:
because that is the document did.
That's not the context for it at all actually, not even close. False equivalence.
Nope. The document says that he destroys timelines just by casting his shadow over them, which is in contrast to him actually picking up the Ball. The ease at which he destroys universe is already covered by the dog metaphor, the shadow thing is a literal thing, but a metaphor.
It literally says it destroys universe just by casting its shadow over them. Also, it does make sense. In what way does it not?
You are contradicting yourself.
You are saying that the shadow is both a metaphor and is a literal shadow.
If it is a metaphor, then a proper comparison would be when people in fiction say something along the lines of: "The difference in power was like comparing a drop of water to an ocean"
You can calculate the difference between a drop of water and an ocean, but that numerical difference isn't a literal comparison of strength between the two things/people being compared.
The same can be said for The Dog and its shadow.
And if it is a literal shadow, then the comparison is meaningless because shadows aren't cast by a person, but by a light source shining its light on said person or thing.
So a comparison of strength can't be made about a person and their shadow.
What it is likely saying is that The Dog is so strong then when getting close to a universe, to the point where its shadow is cast over the said universe. The universe is destroyed.
The shadow has nothing to do with the person, or "The Dog" in this case, especially considering you said earlier that his shadow doesn't have any special properties which he controls - that it is just a shadow.