The dichotomy between spatial and temporal is false in the light of general relativity. It is hardly surprising that "velocity in time" appears impossible when starting with an absurdity, which the idea of a rate of change of time over time most certainly is. I have pointed out (twice) that the exact same absurdity arises for space when the question is phrased so as to guarantee it. This is why science is not based on arguments, irrefutable or otherwise. What does your model provide by way of predictions that the general common assumption does not?

I can answer that straight away: Without time, there would be no energy, which is expressed in dimensions of time to the power of minus two. The kinetic energy of a projectile can be evaluated at a point in time, eliminating any reference to change. The heat energy resulting from stopping the projectile at that point in time also follows from this. Moreover, the velocity of a projectile at a poiint in time influences not just the passage of time but its mass at any given point, due to relativity.

If your argument is irrefutable, then why is it so easy to find refutations?

I suspect that the problem is that, as so often in physics, you have found an abstraction which is consistent with known physics from which time can be eliminated. There are many such abstractions, including ones with eleven spatial dimensions or ore. As Popper and Kuhn both explained in depth, mere consistency of a model with existing observations does not generate new knowledge. To stand up to refutation, or to shift a paradigm, the model must offer something concrete that we would not have looked for otherwise. When your model is generated from existing observations you already know that it is consistent with observations previously conceivable.

What observation would follow from your arguments that would defeat them if falsified?