People use the word "time" as if just by using that word, or concept, they fully know something that's actually universal. But I say one can only truly know something that's universal by having a genuine full-on experience of universality (i.e., of the Divine, which requires fully accessing and being the Divine and universal part of "yourself"). And only by then continuing to have genuine direct experiences of that.
You may think you know or understand time, but --sorry! -- you probably only have vague and unrefined concepts of it. And the menu isn't the real meal, at all. I'd like to throw in a few questions about your (and my) concepts of time. I hope this isn't too off-topic.
Whenever you imagine a "point" in time (well, aren't "points" a fiction anyway, because if they're infinitely small then how do they even exist?), do you ever do it without in the process going self-aware somewhat, and so I'd ask, in what ways self-aware?
Even if we confine ourselves to the time which (supposedly) flows, there are zillions of questions. E.g., if the present, existentielle moment ("the Here and Now") is the foreground of such time, what is the background? Is it the past, or the future? Seems to me there are good reasons for favoring the future rather than the past, or at least for including both. So, if you'll grant that, why doesn't the time-which-flows flow backwards rather than forwards?
The "time" which apparently flows actually doesn't, I claim (as both Western and Eastern philosophy have very thoroughly and water-tightly proved), but notice that the time which flows isn't self-aware, while time in any other sense is. The latter point brings us to places like the philosophy of Martin Heidegger (around the early twentieth century). Heidegger argued very powerfully and convincingly that time in its truest or fullest sense is the same thing as being. Zen Buddhism, which probably had the most completely formulated understanding of time, also came to practically the same conclusion.