[bermanoid]

I'm not entirely sure what you're really trying to say overall, but you're accusing the article of making several incorrect statements and then in the next breath saying a whole bunch of stuff that completely and utterly contradicts any mainstream interpretation of physics. You might be making a philosophical argument about the definition of "time", in which case I'd say "fine, whatever" (metaphysics is probably the grandest waste of time and effort that humanity has ever dreamed up), but I still don't see what makes anything in the article wrong - what tangible physical predictions does it make that are incorrect, in your opinion?

In physics, time is a dimension in all but the most obscure and fringe formulations - whether you're talking about classical theory, special relativity, quantum mechanics, general relativity, quantum field theory, string theory, M-theory, there's always a timelike dimension that shows up somewhere in the formulation.

Are you actually arguing that all of standard physics is in some way measurably wrong, or are you merely trying to make a philosophical point about the definition of the word "time"?