Well Daniel, you did it again. You are talking full mouth about things you don't understand even remotely. Again, remember that doing the talk is nothing if you don't do the walk too. And you are far from even standing, not to mention walking.And I won't let you botch physics for your obscure needs.
Let's analyze your latest "pearls" in physics.(From your postings regarding the potential evidence for new interactions from Kasimir experiments).

>>An assumption. But one I think well founded based >>on what is known and what is consistent with what >>is known.

Dogrock was asking a question regarding the assumption that gravitation "penetrates" other dimensions.
There is no evidence whatsoever that gravitation penetrates other dimensions, there isn't any evidence that other dimensions even exist.There are only theories, as I said before, mathematically elegant,but nevertheless, just theories.
But since you are so convinced that gravitation penetrates other dimensions,a hypothesis that in your oppinion is "well founded based on what is known and what is consistent with what is known.", pray provide some evidence of what is known. And don't be shy, include the full references, with names, journal,page, etc. And please read them too so that we can discuss them.

>>Far more speculative is whether time penetrates >>into the other dimensions. I am convinced that it >>may penetrate into some ... but not all. And that >>this is the explanation for Bell's Theorum.

This is the best one yet.Which proves without any doubt that you are clueless when it comes to relativity. Anyone that has remotely done any relativity, say special relativity, not general, is aware that time itself is a dimension of spacetime, and consequently it cannot "penetrate" into other dimensions. Time is not a field, like the gravitational field, that can penetrate space/spacetime,it is one of the fundamental bricks of spacetime.Why is it so is yet an open question,but that's how it is.
The reference to the Bell's theorem is absolutely stupid.The Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox implies spatial non-locality, and Bell's theorem confirms that under certain circumstances.It has nothing to do whatsoever with a temporal dimension (we are talking about non-relativistic quantum mechanics here), and it has much less to do with time "penetration", even in the assumption that such an aberration existed.But again, apples, oranges, kiwi, they are all just fruits,right Daniel? Why get confused in the "messy" details of the theory?Popular mechanics is enough for you even when it comes to quantum mechanics.
Or, again, if you have a different oppinion regarding the Bell theorem, locality and non-locallity in classical/relativistic quantum mechanics, pray provide detailed reference.And I mean references, not merely more or less anonymous and sterile quotations. Let's get down to the theory and to the facts.

>>One solution is to have at least one dimension in >>which time does not exist.

One solution to what Daniel,to your ignorance?In relativity, time does not exist in any other dimension, since it is a dimension in itself, as I said before.