HI Excal

Just a few thoughts.

In my opinion, referring to Newton’s “laws” of gravity as “laws” is misleading, despite the universal use of such a term. The relationship of F = g m1 m2 / D^2 is based upon observation rather than a theory or model. This is in contrast with E = mcc which was established from a theoretical model and then experimentally verified. E = mcc, is therefore, in my opinion, a law, F =gmm/dd is not.

General Relativity is a geometric model that does yield Newton’s “Laws”, hence it’s appeal.

I also somewhat agree with you when you stated the following..

“However, the point here is that this predicament is fundamentally based in the definition of motion, which in QFT requires a fixed background of space and time, but which GR has eliminated. Thus, we have a choice; we can give up GR as a description of gravity, and by so doing free up the background of space and time, or we can keep our pet theory of gravity and give up our ability to describe fundamental particles in terms of fundamental.”

but it could be argued that General Relativity has not eliminated the “fixed background”, it is just superfluous.

I look forward to a listing of your premises and the relationships proposed.

Good luck.

Snowflake.