Note that I said that time was "variable" and not "a variable." By this I meant that time is not independant of space (i.e. cannot be measured in absolute terms, regardless of motion and/or position). I can see where the term might have expressed a connotation I did not intend; sorry about that!
As for time "flow," imagine growing up on a spaceship which constantly accelerated from zero to lightspeed and back. Time would certainly "flow" (or ripple) if measured under those conditions, as it would move faster or slower depending on the velocity of your ship at any moment. Besides, time does "flow" normally, as a dropped ball shows the direct flow of time (the ball doesn't hover or reverse directions)...
No it would not. Referring to any clock on board your ship would reveal no changes. You would conclude that time was 'flowing' in a perfectly normal manner--one second per second. Only by reference to an external clock could you 'perceive' a change in the "rate of flow" (whatever that is) of time. Furthermore, you would reasonably conclude that it was the external clock that was speeding up or slowing down, since manifestly things are normal aboard ship.
"Besides, time does "flow" normally, as a dropped ball shows the direct flow of time (the ball doesn't hover or reverse directions)..."
The laws of physics are time-symmetric. You cannot distinguish a film of a ball bouncing up from the pavement from one of the ball dropping to the pavement and played backward. Entropy provides an 'arrow' of time but this is not an explanation; it is an observation. It is perfectly possible, e.g., for a glass of water at 70F to spontaneously freeze, or all the air in a room to collect in one corner. The second law is empirical, a statement that we rarely see such phenomena--indeed that they are so improbable as to require more than the age of the Universe to be likely to happen.