This question should be posted on the Physics SE and/or the Mathematics SE, so that the professionals can have a whack at it. But in the meantime, here is my take:
To begin with: although he may have been the leading mathematical physicist of his time, Aristotle by modern standards was neither a physicist nor a mathematician. Both fields have progressed so ...
In the Universe (as whole) there is only one infinite and
absolute physical structure - it is Minkowski 4-D (spacetime)
This so called ''Minkowski light cone'' is not abstract concept
The real image of ''light cone or 4-D'' is Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
I watched a video of senior college students grapple with Aristotle's ideas and expressions. Their common underlying theme seem to be a trying very hard to ascertain what Aristotle was actually saying. Some of his philosophy is clear and common, and in agreement with most other well known philosophers. But a good bit of it is convoluted or ambiguous.
The argument seems to be a variation of Parmenides's argument against change, especially the premise "ex nihilo nihil fit" that being ("B" in your example) cannot come from nothing (to which "A" was reduced):
If a thing arrives at existence it comes either from being or from nothing.
Now it cannot come from being (statue from existing statue). Still ...
I feel your argument works. It is one of the arguments used in the Perennial tradition to show the impossibility of change.
Change is seen to occur but the idea of change doesn't work when we assume the essential or fundamental reality of the changing object. So your argument is not actually against perceived change, which is simply a fact, but against the ...