Here are recent posts of mine on other people's blogs (just in case they delete them!):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/john-baez-and-quantum-gravity.html#comments:

Dear Lumo,
Please take a look at t'Hooft's suggestion at http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/fifth-dimension-is-spacetime-fabric.html
I've been interested in this for a decade, and have a pressure calculation for gravity strength which is correct. I've had the preliminary calculation go on Cern document server (preprint EXT-2004-007, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en ) and published in 12 pages of the magazine Electronics World (4 pages in the August 2002 issue, 6 in the April 2003 issued, and 2 other pages of letters; http://www.softcopy.co.uk/electronicsworld/ ).However, with t'Hooft's recent ideas it now looks a part of 5-D spacetime. It would be nice to have someone put a paper about it on arxiv, which I did using my university email address for verification in 2002, but they removed my paper about 2 minutes later. The prejudices in science are inexcusible. What makes it so bad is the propaganda supporting 10-D spacetime speculation for ST.
Why not 5-D string theory
Best wishes,Nigel

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=251#comments:

Nigel Says: September 4th, 2005 at 8:42 am
Peter,
If you click on my name you go into a disussion of the fifth dimension as being the spacetime fabric responsible for gravity:http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/fifth-dimension-is-spacetime-fabric.html
This looks like a more sensible approach than the usual ‘consistent theory of quantum gravity’ that ST is supposed to provide, since this approach unlike usual ST actually seems to predict things.
Nigel

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=250#comments:

Nigel Says: September 4th, 2005 at 9:04 am
All the ideas discussed by mainstream quantum gravity theorists are not crazy enough to be made to work or be tested. I like the approach of t’Hooft, who minimises the number of extra dimensions to 1, and shows how this predicts the spacetime fabric. I’m completely sick of SR being used to deny the spacetime fabric in causal gravity. In 1905 Einstein wrongly said, for example, that a clock at the equator will run more slowly than at the poles. In reality, when you look at the 1972 test with atomic clocks, this prediction failed. SR is only an approximation to GR, which involves acceleration and absolute motion. I think the kind of religion in the physics community which instantly labels this notion crackpot is deplorable. The physical attributes of spacetime fabric are more tangible and measurable than 10-D multiverse speculations.