Then I guess we'll get to them later.

As you wish.

In the mean time, feel free to address any of the issues I've already brought up.

Well, these four unknown forces are: 1) Compressive Force, 2) Integral Force, 3) Force on a field and 4) Space-Force. Details about these forces can be seen in the links.

Yes, as I said: you are violating some of the basic definitions of Newtonian mechanics. At most you can claim you've made a more generalized version.

Seems correct as application of Newtonian mechanics is enhanced.

Yes, in direct conflict with how Newtonian mechanics uses the term.

Clearly, it is not. If you use terms like "force" in a scientific context, but you are actually using a different definition than the standard one, it would be wise for you to explicitly mention that. Otherwise confusion ensues.

Here force still can be considered as F=dE/dx; where dE is change in energy over an infinitesimal distance dx.

That link mentions that this is a first approximation, and cannot work as-is because of the acceleration of the universal expansion. In other words: the link itself states this model cannot explain our current observations. As I said: "Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it."

GR is also not complete in explaining expansion of our universe.

True, but can you promise me that your text either contains a space-force that doesn't need an absolute reference frame, or makes a strong case why an absolute reference frame exists?

What do you mean by absolute reference frame? Here any point can be considered for reference.

Then stop bringing up others papers!

Right: "These two models can be correlated through my theory." I've already brought up all kinds of issues in your first two texts, issues that you refuse (cannot?) address. You have made an attempt, and looking at the current score, you've failed.

Can you answer my OP question in GR?

Turns out I wasn't wrong, and the link actually states that our universe is incompatible with the Newtonian model it discusses.

As i said earlier GR is also incomplete in this regard.

Time Dilation can be explained by Compressive Force. Math is explained there. Only testing is required.No calculations. No evidence. You are doding the question once again. I'll just repeat it verbatim: 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.

For Mercury Precession some unknown force must be there.

For LHC particle accelerator, what is your specific question?