If you are really serious about wanting to know what time is, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions? I'm not saying that you have to agree on whether my definitions must be right or not, that's something different. But what you are doing here is that you are challenging the entire hypothesis based on the a priori assumption that our perception is subjective and that my definitions are wrong. Therefore you continue to reject all evidence that is based upon the opposite assumption and raise arguments that are based upon YOUR understanding of what time is. But again if you state that you don't know what time is in the first place, then how come it is so hard for you to accept my definitions?
Have you even believed for one second that there really could be a person who has figured out what time is? Who has not only been able to figure it out, but also been able to precisely define it without using circular logic? Because I don't know if you are aware of it, our current definition of what a clock is, is based upon the concept of time. Therefore it should come as no surpise that if we define time as the quantity 'that which clocks measure', it makes sense.
Of course it makes sense! It makes sense, because the current definitions of what time and clocks are, are based upon circular logic! Clocks are defined using time and time is defined using clocks. Can you not see how fundamentally flawed this understanding of 'what time is', really is? Can you not see that if you are determined to reject my definitions, you will need to come up with some better alternatives? And that they'd better be damn good if you want to find a solid ground for rejecting my ideas?