In Newtons Principia he wrote:
Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration.
Hence, Newton distinguishes three forms of time - absolute, true and mathematical - and then identifies them.
Whereas for Aristotle, time was an aspect of change, and of which one aspect is physical motion; Newton reverses this conception, in a sense.
Thus, Newtonian time flows everywhere in space at the same rate; so for a man positioned somewhere in space he can 'see' in a sense (as in McTaggarts 'tensed' time) the future coming forward becoming the present and then going behind to the past; or in Heracleitian imagery time is like a river.
But it's the relative motion here that counts.
So, one might equally say that time rather than flowing like a river, stands still, like a lake it's surface is unruffled; until one puts a particle on it, which then moves ahead of its own volition.
This in fact is the usual way that one describes the classical trajectory of a cannonball in a space and time diagram; an exercise that one might do at school, say on graphed paper with the horizontal axis for time and the vertical one for displacement.
So, here - time does not flow; the cannon-ball moves in time.
The difference between the two pictures, Newtons original conception and the standard one taught is not usually remarked on.
Philosophically, or ontologically, though, is there a difference between saying that time flows or not?
Even when the physical picture, the expressed by calculations in Newtonian Physics, give the same result?