[quote=Mammalia]
A. Thus, possibility, not absolution.B. Minkowski Space is what "four-dimensional space" is, and it is the interwoven combination of space and time. I never said that time was a spatial dimension. Just that it was dimension. It's the fourth dimension, and when woven with space we get Minkowski Space, "four-dimensional space".C. Time is the fourth dimension, and since we observe three-dimensional space and also the movement of time, we generally accept that the universe is four-dimensional (and thus sprouts relativity, as stated in B).D. They are possible explanations based on our perceived (observed) mathematics in relation to sciences and the universe as a whole. They're "testable" by mathematics, and those tests are repeatable. Of course these tests are not physical tests, and these theses are still only theses, and will remain theses since we can never prove them absolutely because we are not infallible and therefore don't know the maths perfectly.
[/quote]

A) A worthless one; it's also possible that I'm blue.
B) That would make us fourth dimensional as well. Either way, the point is irrelevant since time has nothing to do with the spacial area of the universe.
C) Refer to B
D) They aren't tests! Those are equations that we repeat since we don't change our information. What we observe isn't relevant to what actually exists! We can observe nothing in relation to out spacial universe, and have no scientific was of proclaiming anything about it as true or likely. It's just there, and we can only guess. It's not real science, and we can't call it that.