You keep saying odd things like that as if they meant something.
Time is not perception. They are different things. That’s why we have two different words for them.
If you cannot understand what has been explained, then I cannot help you, when you are not asking what parts exactly you don’t understand.
Apparently your posts make sense to you. Ok.
I’ll leave you to it.
It is crystal clear to me. But maybe not to you. If you are lost, ask for help rather than assuming or prejudging impatiently, and will try to clarify as best as I can.
I did ask for an explanation. You didn’t seem to notice.
Well?
I never said about two different words. Maybe you did. You should know what you have said. If you don’t know what you said, then how would you expect to know what others said? 
Yep. So far as I can see, you’re not making any sort of coherent point. Here’s were this started:
Your argument seemed to be that things which are invisible are all illusions. That’s a bit silly.
So what did you mean? And what is the “them”?
The old monk said “To silly folks, everything sounds silly.”
Because time is used for convenience as a civilisation contract, humans created many different times, as you may heard some of them. For instance, there are summer time, winter time, lunch time, dinner time, bed time … etc etc.
It is not because there are many different physical times as such, but humans call them as fits.
Forks?
So is time an illusion?
Typo can happen when you type fast. But I always correct them.
Keep in mind that no deterministic interpretation of QM yet existed when he said this. All of them were probabilistic, but also, almost all of them were epistemic, few ontic interpretations.
Rate of motion is ‘speed’, not time. They have different units. Speed is incoherent without time, as is force, torque, temperature, pretty much anything involved in dynamics.
You seem to equate (the reality of?) time to determinism above, which is silly. There are multiple interpretations of QM, some of which are deterministic and some not. All of them treat time the same (well 2 ways, as concepts, and as something ontic). The non-deterministic ones disallow libertarian free will just as much as do the deterministic ones.
Later you seem to equate the existence of time to a block view (the view that there is no preferred moment in time), which is contradictory since the alternative is the premise that there IS a preferred moment in time, which would be self contradictory if time didn’t exist as you suggest.
Also, an omniscient god is another example that contradicts this free will you assert just as much as you think a block universe does. The church does admittedly attempt some fancy hand waving in recognition of this problem.
I don’t think you can give a single example of a decision better made with free will rather than having caused by prior physical state. Nobody ever has.
I have found serious errors in her apparently non-peer-reviewed videos, but that ‘platitude’ wasn’t one of them. It’s a dang good definition, working well with any interpretation of time, except apparently yours.
The statement does not assert that time necessitates a clock.
It stipulates its premises, and RoS is not one of them. RoS is derived, not stipulated. Sure, you can deny both premises and then RoS goes away.
The problem was that it appeared impossible to determine with certainty whether two distant events were truly simultaneous
SR, if assumed, precludes any meaningful ‘truly’ about simultaneity. On the other hand, SR does not describe our universe, so the point is academic, or meaningful only locally.
due to the fact that all things, including the earth itself, are moving
Earth moving is no a relativistic statement, and thus meaningless in the absence of a reference.
Again, this is not a premise of SR. Presuming otherwise does indeed contradict the actual SR premises, so there is no reason to state this 3rd premise.
Whether or not this premise is true has never been tested
Presuming (probably incorrectly) that this refers to either actual premise of SR, yes, that’s why they’re called premises.
This entire post contradicts pretty much all of the physics of the last 125 years. Don’t make such assertions when you admit that your knowledge of the subject is very limited.
Sure, you could look at it that way, one premise being that the speed of light is constant, and the other being the principles of classical relativity theory. And you could say that these two premises produce the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity. But if you look more closely, you’ll see that what Einstein actually did was to stipulate the relativity of simultaneity, for the purpose of producing consistency between those two principles, which you are calling premises.
Take a look:
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
-Einstein, Relativity, Part 1 Section 9 The Realativity of Simulaneity.
The principle of “absolute” time is discarded in favour “relativity of simultaneity”, and this allows for consistency between "classical relativity’ and a constant speed of light. So I read, the premise as “relativity of simultaneity”, and the conclusion as the theory by which the Motions of objects are relative to each other, is consistent with the speed of light is constant.
Either way you look at it, doesn’t really make a lot of difference, as you say, one can accept the structure or reject it.
Read the quote above. I suggest you are misreading “The Special Theory of Relativity”.
There is no debate. If you understand physics time is like a projection of the underlying reality and it’s relative.
Two observers – let’s say you and a ship moving at 50% the speed of light – have two different conceptions of time. What you consider the “present” and what the ship considers to be “present” are different. This is well understood.
So there cannot be a “real time”. Period.
But then it gets even trickier, because if you understand the physics behind the twin paradox, the only way to properly resolve it is if we live in a block universe. So both the past and the future are as real as the present. The fact that we do not see the future doesn’t mean it’s not there.
I do not see what I’ll be doing 10 years into the future, but I also don’t see what is happening 10 light-years to the east, do I?
A separation in time is not fundamentally different than a separation in space.
My impending death convinces me that time is real.
Events happen first, then time get stamped on the events after. With the time stamp, time is real.
Some events with missing time stamps have no information on time of the events. For example, the date and time, when the universe started. The date and time when the first human was born on the earth.
What does this mean? Events still happen whether time is real or not. People keep being born, trees keep growing, the seasons keep changing, and people keep dying regardless of time is real or not.
Ever consider the possibility that physics is wrong on this matter?
Out of curiosity, how would you determine ten light years to the east?
Sure, give me an alternative explanation for the results of the experiments that are consistent with special relativity. One that involves invariant time.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 10 light-years, or 1 light-year, or 10 light-seconds. Anything that is significantly distant from me in any spatial direction is inaccessible to me in the present.
I can explain why relativity gives adequate results regardless of truth. Galileo developed relativity theory when he realized that the motions of the sun and planets could be modeled equally as heliocentric or geocentric. Each model gave adequate predictive capacity, so truth was irrelevant when modeling motions, because motions could be modeled as relative.
The same principle applies to special relativity. Einstein realized that true simultaneity was not required, so simultaneity was deemed as relative. Therefore it’s impossible that relativity theory provides us with the truth about time, because the primary premise is that truth is irrelevant.
I was just wondering, how would you determine which direction is east.
That’s completely false. The geocentric model failed on many specifics, for example the phases of Venus cannot be explained. Galileo himself pointed out that if Venus orbits Earth between us and the Sun, there cannot be a full Venus, ever.
You are just considering the most generic observations.
That is also false. As the Venus example shows, not all models are consistent with the observations.
Consider the results of the muon decay experiments.
Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere about 15 km up create muons – unstable subatomic particles – traveling toward Earth at 99.8% the speed of light. Muons have a measured mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds. At their speed, even generously, they should travel at most 660 meters before decaying.
Yet we detect them abundantly at sea level, 15 km away.
The muons are not slowing down. There is no unknown force preserving them. By any classical calculation, the vast majority should not exist by the time they reach the ground – yet they do, in exactly the numbers you would predict if time itself behaves differently for a fast-moving object than for a stationary one.
How do you get from 660 meters to 15 kilometers?
Relative simultaneity wasn’t a philosophical starting point – it was forced on Einstein by experimental results, particularly the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed the speed of light is identical in all reference frames regardless of motion. The math follows from that physical fact.
The “truth is irrelevant” and “all models are valid” is not a satisfactory “explanation”.
Relativity fails on many specifics, black holes, spatial expansion, dark energy, dark matter, etc..
This is what is false. The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that the relationship between a material body and the proposed aether was not as hypothesized. In no way does it demonstrate that the speed of light is identical in all reference frames.