Physical reality is fundamentally timeless

My opponent seems to be fighting for the cause that either the speed of light is so large that it ignores time or that the mind boggling concept of time units even several magnitudes above the Planck time do not count as fundamental.The speed of light is measured as approximately 2.997 * 108 m/s. I'll agree with you that this is a ridiculous speed and it is absurd to try and visualize it. in our daily lives we perhaps manage to reach 27 m/s when driving down the highway to attend to our daily duties. We don't even manage to reach a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light and thus time dilation seems insignificant, but we're still going pretty fast when we discuss the smaller length units. The Planck length is the smallest length unit that we have, is approximately 1.616 * 10-35 m long. In comparison the charge radius of a single proton is 'only' 8.768 * 10^-16 m long, almost 10000000000000000000 times larger than the Planck length. visualizing the size of an proton was already a daunting task. This size is so ridiculously small that no matter how you try to visualize it it will always seem abstract and out of reach. This terribly small unit is the smallest amount a photon, and in theory, any matter can move and we can still measure it without either breaking the laws of physics or creating a theoretical black hole, essentially the smallest unit that will ever exist that is practical.1 now, what happens when the unimaginably large speed passes the unimaginably small length?I quote my opponent: “Yes, I know. It varies depending on one's/someone's speed (Hence, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity). So, because of light's incredible speed (And this will be repeated over and over again), it can travel an inch, yet, not even the very least second passes, thus meaning that time isn't FUNDAMENTALLY physical.” “Ah. I was trying to display an example. What if light travels 3 inches? Most probably, not even the very least second passes.” Reading into these arguments tells me that, for light, time breaks down since it is experiencing a complete halt in its FoR, but we already established that when light is in vacuum travelling at c space breaks down as well, meaning that whatever length it is travelling it will arrive instantly. at least in its FoR. It won't matter if it is travelling a meter or ten billion meters; length contraction provides the photons with the option that all lengths are equally long (0m). If this is the case then the statement “Time is not fundamentally physical” is as valid as the sentence “Space is not fundamentally physical.” if you debate one you must debate the other under this set of arguments. The other, less elegant, interpretation is that because the time required to travel even an inch is so small for light it can be neglected and is almost mute. But the problem is, in all other FoR's light MUST move at c when it is in vacuum. This gives us a definite time limit, a measurable time limit. If the shortest length possible is the Planck length then the shortest time unit possible must be the speed at which light travels over it. This unit is called Planck time. The value? 5.4 * 10-44 seconds4 in round 1. Simply put, it's so ridiculously small that imagining it is impossible, we have no way of visualising it. BUT, this is still a number, it is still a measurable time. It may be so minuscule that for all practical purposes it could just as well be a 0, but it is still there. There will be a value that comes out of this wherever you add it into equations requiring t it will still return a defined, non-zero value. I hand the debate over to my opponent with the request that he provides a detailed explanation on why time is not fundamental and what makes a fundamental value and what does not fit in the definition. 1) http://math.ucr.edu...