Can we dispense with elastic time?
i'm guessing not - more on that below .. i spent the day doing four things: trying to visualize the interaction (and structure) of spacelets with flux vortices that may comprise elementary particles, trying to explain the cycle of plant and animal life to Joe (my nephew), trying to explain the danger of rabies to Joe and Arthur (my son), and trying to explain the importance of friends protecting friends to Joe, Arthur, and Poy (their friend). Not easy considering my broken Thai and the fact they're 6, 3, and 5 respectively. ;) ..i also just spent a few minutes trying to chuck the concept of temporal elasticity. But considering gravitational and relativistic time dilation, i don't think we can.. Local time is affected by two things: strong gravity and your speed relative to your starting point. If you're near strong gravity, time slows down 'because of the gravity'. And if your speed relative to your starting point gets anywhere near c, the speed of light in a vacuum, time slows down from that too.. So only considering those two facts, we cannot chuck the concept of elastic time.
The reason however - we cannot model elementary particle mass with temporal curvature only is because of two things: Lense-Thirring and the postulate e.p.s are dual spacelets e-m vortices. If indeed Lense-Thirring is confirmed and indeed e.p.s are dual structures, space must have some way to twist: elasticity. So elastic time alone cannot explain these things - by itself.
i had approached the structure issue some years ago but did not have access to decent simulation equipment (fast computers with large capacity) so i 'postponed development' performing other activities (living 'normal' life).. i'm confident that others can find a suitable 3D wavelet model to represent spacelets and also the coupling scheme to define the relationship between spacelets and flux vortices. That part of the theory does not concern me. The thing that concerns me is: how we derive the proton/electron mass ratio from elasticity/impedance. If we postulate 'elastic modes' which produce the stable particle distribution in our universe, we're no better than PQMers. That's about as repulsive to me as trying to use QFT to justify spacelet theory.
The other thing that concerns me is mentioned above: the coupling scheme between spacelet and vortex. My previous research indicated flux rotation rate and mass-spin are not identical so that needs simulation and theoretical investigation. Another thing is energy distribution: is energy dually manifested or does it reciprocate between them? (In the previous paper, it was suggested energy reciprocates within a photon but not implied in e.p.s) Reciprocation might explain tunneling and other features we detect, but presents problems when modeling orbitals deterministically (orbit size is wrong when using a reciprocating e-m field). So i'm not convinced elementary particle flux energy reciprocates with spacelet energy. It may be static and dually manifested. So the coupling scheme between spacelet and e-m vortex needs thorough investigation.
The two issues above: coupling scheme and derivation of particle distribution from elasticity/impedance do not especially concern me. i'm confident human beings have the brain power and patience to derive them both. After all, we've just spent about 100 years developing a model based on a faulty primary hypothesis.. ;)
One last thing mentioned above: please please please do not attempt to use QFT to justify/develop any part of spacelet theory. QFT is based on virtual particles and that simply has no place in spacelet theory. Spacelet theory was developed from a deterministic semi-classical perspective with heavy emphasis on classic electromagnetics. If you study the previous essays on the subject, you get a feel of how the theory was developed. Please do not pervert the theory by trying to include it in the Standard Model. Please respect the theory in the spirit it was developed.
Spacelet theory is essentially the application of GR to elementary particles. But it's also the reaffirmation of engineering values and ethic. Engineers are practical and tend to see things that way. What's the simplest model we can create to 'do the job'? We're expedient if nothing else. Of course when required, we can be very sophisticated and subtle. But our main thrust is expediency. So Occam's Razor is part of the engineering spirit. It's built in. Leave it to an engineer to 'point the way' to unification.. i believe that was the most likely scenario anyways.. Please do not take this as arrogance - only a shift in perspective..