The problem with the brane/bulk theory (which I quite like otherwise) is the way that it's been described doesn't actually explain FTL travel (perceived or otherwise). String theory describes a series of membranes in parallel. If that is the case, any tachyon neutrino would have to travel significantly faster than LS once is enters the bulk to arrive at the same point ahead of light. This is why I quite like my own theory, which allows that to happen without actually exceeding light speed. However, having given the matter more thought, I have to concede that the "infinitely small" nature of the Z axis in our own perceived universe is something of a problem to explain. Nevertheless, I have an addendum that may allow the 3rd observable dimension to exist (to a point, though the point that the theoretical Z axis disintegrates is likely to be so far off even possible measurement that it could be true anyway), and that is that the brane that we occupy has a fixed X and Y dimension (and time is, to an extent, fixed also, within the confines of Einstein's theory) but the Z dimension is actually flexible. If I return to the "globe" theory, the brane on the globe that we occupy may be similar to a layer in a gelatinous body, in that it can expand and contract within the bulk to accommodate the Z.
This in turn would mean that all other branes adjacent (and those adjacent to those etc) would expand and contract accordingly, hence the need for time being a universal constant. If our Z dimension forces concentric dimensions closer to the centre, then time would have to speed up or slow down accordingly to maintain a constant, measurable time in each concentric layer. This would also allow observation within all 4 (X, Y and Z + time) dimensions of observable space, whilst maintaining a bridge for neutrinos to cross thus creating the illusion of FTL. There would, of course, be a falloff in the expansion/contraction as we observe in our own day to day lives.
The more I think about this (which is a surprisingly large amount for a complete amateur) the more I like my theory and the more it explains what is already accepted as fact and explains the "anomaly" observed at CERN and Italy. IMO - more than what is currently conventional theory.
It does start to fall down as you approach the extremities of the "Z" dimension, but since we have no way of knowing what happens there (perhaps the barriers between the branes fall down themselves) I can comfortably continue with my current train of thought.
EDIT: OK - at the extremities, and given that I don't condone more that one extra dimension, I have a possible solution, which lies in the whole matter/anti-matter theory. Rather than a clear boundary between branes, there is more of a blurring (think of a gradient) between relative observable dimensions. As you approach the extremities (though this will happen from the epicentre of each observable set of dimensions, increasing as you approach the limits) there isn't a clear and defined barrier. Instead, each merges to the next, maintaining a single 5th dimension. The distinction between branes isn't so much dimensional as it is the difference between matter and anti-matter. There becomes an increasing likelihood of exchange of states as you approach the limits, which tiny, sub atomic (let's call then tachyon) neutrinos can navigate. Because this is an exchange, the ratio of matter to anti-matter is maintained, and because this is a constant exchange, the balance between each remains relatively constant, too. Huge particles (Electron, neutron etc) can't cross between the two because the collision with their exchanged counterparts would annihilate both, whilst the smallest particles with mass could travel and narrowly escape destruction. This maintains the idea that mass is required to travel across the "blur", explaining why light can't escape and why FTL still appears to happen.
I'm getting a headache now.
