Another of STT’s arguments is based on the class of physics that is taught in secondary school: Velocity and many other rates of change are expressed in units of “x” (meters, for instance, or temperature, or energy…) divided by “t”, and everybody knows that “t” represents “time”. Therefore, time exists! (And he will add that it must be a “thing”).
So, STT has discovered that speed, for example, is a distance that we divide by a thing called “time”. What on earth does that division mean? Imagine yourself trying to divide 10 meters by a thing like an apple, for instance. My mind freezes!
But who will dare to say that “speed” is a thing? Who will dare to say that an arithmetic operation is a thing? We see things moving, but we don’t see “speeds” dancing before us. So, what is speed? It is our mental representation of an aspect of things moving. And it is in this mental representation (an arithmetic division) where we include “time”.
Ask STT if “time” is a perceivable “thing”. He has acknowledged somewhere else that it isn’t (because it is not the first time STT shares his confusions about time in the forum). So, if it is already nonsensical trying to divide distance by apples, imagine how it is trying to divide it by a thing that you don’t perceive. And if now he prefers to say that time is a perceivable thing, he just have to point at it with his finger. All arguments would become irrelevant.
What do we really do when we determine, for instance, the speed of a big object? Don’t we observe the movement of the body and the movement of our chronometer? Don’t we measure the distance traveled by the object and see the marks in our chronometer? Don’t we just do an arithmetic division based on these two observations? And that is it! Where on earth appears that unperceivable “thing” that STT calls “time”.
Now, STT has resorted on the so called “Occam’s razor” to settle a discussion. Such principle would apply here, but… would STT apply it to himself? Of course not! But will he offer a reason? None!