You might want to be a bit more careful with your language, because "invariant" has a specific technical meaning in relativity.
That said, your comment doesn't make much sense. The "spooky action at a distance" doesn't reside in any specific inertial frame. It is a correlation between events, and I might also add that events don't belong to any specific inertial frame.
An inertial frame is a point of view--a coordinate system. Any event that occurs takes place in all inertial frames; nobody is prevented from observing, in principle, any event, no matter how fast they are going, or in what direction. Nobody can be said to be "at rest" with respect to an event, as the mere fact of an event's occurrence means that momentum has been transferred from something to something else. (When a bullet hits a target, does that impact event take place in the bullet's frame, or the target's?)
There is a more detailed scientific article on the matter here:
OK, let me make a few comments with regards to how you're going about this, and I hope you'll take them kindly. It seems that you have an idea in your head about how things are "supposed" to behave, and you're going to cling to it, whether or no. When you are told that your basic idea is wrong, you reject that, and assume that the disagreement is the result of your failure to articulate your thought, and not because your thought is wrong. Then, in order to bolster your case, you cast about for things on the internet that (according to your reading) support your position.
Step back a moment. Start from scratch. Forget about wormholes and pilot waves and time travel and FTL communication. Don't link papers you can't read. Those are advanced topics, and you haven't understood the basics. Get the basic mechanics right, and then you can ponder the weird stuff.
You don't need to cast about on the internet. Most of the stuff you'll find out there is wrong, anyhow (although sharpblue's stuff is A-OK). At least one of your interlocutors is a professional physicist who really does understand this stuff at the level you require.
One last thing. I try my level best not to "pull rank" on these threads, and say things like "I'm a physicist and you're not, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't, thus I'm right and you're wrong, now shut up". That said, if I say something that doesn't jibe with your understanding, do at least stop and consider that I probably have a very good reason for saying it.
Well, there's much to say about all that, but rather little worth saying, so I won't bother saying it!
Your impression of me and my approach is quite wrong, though. Quite the disappointment, really.
Have a g'day!