I did not propose to do away with the idea of S-T as "causation," as you put it, John. IMO, S-T can cause nothing but provide us with information about events that could occur to objects moving in space. S-T is not a physical place in space, nor is it any kind of a force that can bend or warp space. It is instead a math construct, i.e., a tool, invented to enable calculations of events in time and in space. We construct math tools like logical assertions, as "What if" propositions in our minds. It was determined long ago that the results our tools provide us are not proofs of reality simply because they are not perfect, and because their interpretations are infallible.
Here is a good explanation of the difference between classical time and space-time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spacetime&printable=yes
I contend time, OTOH, is the fifth fundamental force, and as such, it exists like so many other things in the universe that are invisible or transparent to us, such as gravity, dark matter, and light. To me, it becomes a matter of one's ability to focus on every detail of all explanations given as conclusions from experimental or simply observed effects.
I am not able to access your "here" link to "...a possibility worth considering." The link to your previous contest entry works fine. I will take the time to read it carefully. You bring up some very good points with which I heartily agree.
You make a good point about light speed being constant then, disallowing FTL speeds as the BBT claims. Regarding space expansion or inflation, to believe space is expanding requires space to have a physical existence, and I think it does. The best solution to the Inflationary Period (IP) conjecture is a simple one: There was no matter exiting the BB when the IP occurred (matter formed later), therefore, time had not yet begun to become a property of matter. EM energy of that particular instant would not have had any mass to it and would not be subject to the force of time, thus it had no limitations of speed as it does now. This idea is invalid if matter formed prior to the IP; I do not know if it did or not. If so, it means another trip for me back to the so-called "drawing board."
I refer to the BB problems in my essay, including the one about the rate of expansion increasing, which requires an explanation for the gap between the "slowing down expansion" of the IP, as is claimed today, and the "speeding up" and increasing expansion rate discovered by Hubble.
I am working now to think just how it would be possible for space to physically expand, or more appropriately, grow at great distances from us, yet not locally. The observed effect of space growth may be only another of nature's tricks on us. These issues of Modern Physics need attention and not abandonment.
I have not heard of the concept that the speed of atom-bound electrons varies with respect to the speed of its host system, but I think it is a great idea! If it is true, it may explain more precisely why time rates vary inversely proportional to an object's speed! Do you have a site or link where I can read more about that? Electrons have mass, so they too would be subject to time whether free or bound to a system. It may be their loss or gain of energy has something to do with time rates, too.
As far as "gravitational drag" goes, that has to do with more or less gravity pulling on objects depending on their distance from earth's surface. For me, it is not the difference in gravity that causes the time difference on the ground clock vs. the tower clock. The difference occurs because the speeds of the two clocks are different instead. As a propeller repairperson in the USAF (so very long ago!), I learned quickly that the tip of a propeller moves through air much faster than does its shank area. That is due to the fact the tip must cover a longer distance around the prop's spin circle circumference than does the prop's hub. The tower clock must move faster compared to the ground clock since they must move as a single object locked into the earth's spin. It is the same with the satellites locked into synchronous orbits. They move faster than all clocks on the surface of the planet, thus their time rates are slower.
Wish I could respond to your other points, but I am out of time!