Lawrence,
The line between theory and interpretation does get a little fuzzy. Theories are projections of known quantities. Interpretations are projections of theories. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a cumulative effect where all evidence supports and re-enforces the perception. The idea of time as a dimension is supported by lots of evidence, just as the idea that the sun circles the earth was supported by lots of evidence. The problem is that there were discrepancies around the edges. Given the state of telescopes at the time, these were fairly minor to most people.
Consider the point about time I keep making: Does the earth travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?
Now it seems the response is quite often that it is simply a matter of perspective, but then so is the question of whether the sun circles the earth, or the earth rotates is simply a matter of perspective.
When you really sit back and think about it, it is a large difference. It's the difference of whether time is a fundamental dimension, such as space would seem to be, or whether it is an emergent effect, like temperature.
It does also play out in many other, more philosophical aspects of reality, given that such concepts as time travel are based on one model, but the other broadens our understanding of the present, since the cumulative effects of all motion are not reduced to this one linear dimension.
