"Instead of the math, you'd be more likely to understand that a force applied such that expansion overcame gravity (e.g. all mass first inside the area of a marble) was then overcome by gravity (e.g. the universe's "inflation" slowed) and then expanded again, but this time not as fast (i.e. Hubble and others have observed and confirmed that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate)."
Why don't you let me be the judge of what I'll be more likely to understand? Show me your math. I've seen the math for the other theory. Now, I'd like to see the math you use to refute it. If you need to send a .pdf file, you can freepmail me.
Based on your minimal textual explanation, I suspect you are misunderstanding the theory, but I can't tell without your calculations.
"Why don't you let me be the judge of what I'll be more likely to understand?" 
Because you're a biased source.
In contrast, I gave you a more simple, non-mathematical analogy to arrive at the same point. Yet if you can't understand that textual explanation, then there is no chance that you could understand the more complicated math behind it.
And if you do understand that all-text explanation, then the math is unnecessary...which is after all your point, as you want to put up a road block that just gets me to shut up (i.e. your goal).
The simple truth is that you wouldn't know what to do with the math; your hope resides in that I have no response to your demands. Well, your hope is misplaced.