I have, and you ignored it.
Don't tell me to give you something which I already have.
Nah, you just thinking insistence is something that apparently merits a response. Saying what you want to be the case is not something that anyone needs to bother replying to.
You claimed magnetism was irrelevant.
Why bring it back up?
Ah, good old fashioned lying, good on you! Reminder: this whole debate started with me conceding literally every unjustified premise of yours, and you still failed to actually show what you needed to show. Magnetism is only relevant when you've taken several steps in your argument that you've yet to take. It is irrelevant, but that's purely because you've yet to actually start making an argument.
So, here's a to-do list for you, as I notice you ignored it the last time:
1. Show we should give a damn about Newton's laws in a non-Newtonian setting.
2. Show that the reactive force caused by a field would necessarily be similar to the field that caused it.
3. Show that the only fields that can exist are like those that we already observe (this is where magnetism would become relevant, if you're keeping track).
4. Show that the field in question, if it does end up being exerted as a reactive force, would actually pose a problem for FET.
You're claiming 4. You haven't even done the first step yet. Are you planning to, y'know, actually make an argument at any stage?
And I also explained why that was the case and you just ignored that as well.
Saying that is just hilarious when you purposefully clip out the following line that points out how your 'explanation' was a non-entity.