So you refuse to give any here? I guess I'll deal with them when I read your remaining two texts. In other words, you are violating basic principes of Newtonian physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up. So you agree with me that you are using a definition of the word "force" that is incompatible with its usage in physics. Great, glad we got that cleared up. Perhaps you should make this more clear in your first two texts I read, because your definition isn't given there. Yes, the universe appears to be very much non-Newtonian, and thus any Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it. (I strongly suspect you have just introduced a preferred reference frame by claiming the universal expansion can be considered a "space-force", and that you are violating the light-speed limit. But I guess we'll go into that in more details later.) Please explain how the title of a non-peer-reviewed paper you found has bearing on whether QFT is compatible with GR? Except that the Newtonian Model is incompatible with the GR model, and thus at most only one of them can be true. Multiple solutions are fine (Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics are a perfect example!), but incompatible solutions cannot coexist. And that universe is not compatible with Newtonian physics, and thus your "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" can be rejected on that basis. Again, please stop dodging questions. Demonstrate that your Law of Inertia can explain them. Show calculations, evidence. Just you saying "it can, trust me" isn't worth anything in science.