Perhaps the best term is wavicle.
what a great sense of humour.
The best that classical mechanics could determine was that time is a continuum.
In a single moment in time (a point on the time axis), an arrow occupies a single position (a point on the spatial axis).
Therefore, it is stationery in any single point in time, and is moving in any time interval (open or closed).
Where's the problem?
Indeed, in fact time is a continuum according to Dictionary.com.
What is the problem, you ask? Well, Mr. Relative, I think the problem is the theory of general relativity, which contradicts this, according to Asimov's the Universe in a Nutshell.
"in Newton's model, time was separate from space and was considered to be a straight line, that was infinite in both directions....a completely new model was put forth by Einstein: the general theory of relativity...general relativity combines the time dimension with the three dimensions of space to form spacetime...the theory incorporates the effect of gravity by saying that the distribution of matter and energy warps and distorts spacetime, so that it is not flat...objects try to move in straight lines, but their paths appear bent [around masses such as planets]...as if affected by a gravitational field"
The evidence given for this in the book is that light bends when passing by a planet...therefore, the 4 dimensions of spacetime must be bent around this planet.
But it seems to me a more logical guess to me that photons have a small amount of mass, which causes them to actually be affected by gravitational fields. So I don't get how they can conclude from this that time and space are bent.
I also do not understand why relativity would nullify an "overall time"...it seems to me that an "overall time" would simply be time relative to any particular coordinate in the three dimensions of space (all of which would be the same).