What you've essentially done is made an ad populum argument, an argument to authority (and most likely, an argument to the wrong authority), and an appeal to novelty.
Other than Newton, none of the 'sources' you listed is a science source. They are philosophers. Philosophers have some interesting ideas about reality, but only empirical evidence and repeatable tests done by scientists, and peer reviewed, give us a view of what reality truly is.
You said:
Time, to me, is by definition nothing more than a system of temporal relations among things and events, so that the idea of a period of time without change turns out to be incoherent.
Ok, it might be so... can you support your position with empirical evidence or repeatable tests?
By the way, it is not for me to "prove" that Aristotle and Leibniz were wrong; if you believe that Aristotle, Kant, and Leibniz are RIGHT, then you must not only provide a logical argument to support that, but also real references... along with, of course, empirical evidence and repeatable tests.
But again, since philosophy is not what we are discussing here, but the nature of reality and whether time exists as an actual thing or not, this falls under the umbrella of science, not philosophy.