Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

Michael, you seem to have a whole lot to lose if this pans out.

Such as?

Will it be so disconcerting to find the Creator worked longer than you thought?

Not at all. The universe could be eternal and infinite for all I know.

It is so terrifying Bishop Ussher really isn't Divinely Inspired Scripture?

Nope.

Will your faith survive My Lord being more than what you thought?

I kinda assume that God is actually a lot more than I can actually imagine.

The announcement was made, the gravity waves were detected according to the predictions. Now the whole experiment will be reviewed by other physicists to check on data collection and evaluation; to see if the data was collected as claimed and if the data bears out the conclusions announced.

Will they all just blithely *assume* the affirming the consequent fallacy is correct?

Just for the tally books, nothing can be discovered to discredit God. Perhaps traditional Bible understanding will take a hit, but that's happened before; God and Christianity are still valid and alive.

Since I am a Christian and alive, that's not exactly news to me. It's not Christ I reject. It's just Lambda-CDM that I reject.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps traditional Bible understanding will take a hit, but that's happened before; God and Christianity are still valid and alive.

FYI, I long ago gave up limiting my understanding of science to the words written in Genesis and the OT. The term "Let there be light" could simply refer to the flow of electricity for all I know.

My rejection of Lambda-CDM has nothing to do with the Bible, and everything to do my preference for empirical physics.

 

[Michael]

It is so terrifying Bishop Ussher really isn't Divinely Inspired Scripture?

In case there is any confusion I also reject YEC, even more than I reject Lambda-CDM. I'm sure the Earth is at least 4.6 billion years old, and the universe is ancient. If anything it is *more* ancient than we realize IMO.

 

[davidbilby]

Had to stop back in to see how Michael explained some of the findings of the last week. I was at the UCLA symposium for Prof Cline's announcements, and couldn't but suppress a chuckle a few times. Then to read the BICEP paper...just awesome.

Michael, can you summarize briefly your objections to the excess in the BB spectrum, right where inflationary theories predicted, 5.2 sigma significance with numerous bootstraps done? Extragalactic point sources can be ruled out via the cross reference with PLANCK, and BICEP1 and BICEP2 show the same correlation.

Or could you give your explanation of the data showing quite solid evidence for a 30 billion electron volt particle strongly consistent with both axion or WIMP models?

Remind me to add a few more unsupported claims to the list of unsupported claims from the Lambda-CDM doctrine of supernatural dogma:

1) Space expansion 'causes' photon redshift

2) Inflation 'causes' space expansion

Not quite. But you know that.

3) Inflation 'causes' B-mode polarization of photons.

Not quite.

4) Dark energy 'causes' space acceleration

Given that "dark energy" is the name we give for whatever causes the acceleration of the expansion of space-time, if indeed that is the correct explanation of the redshift data...it kind of does by definition. Again, it's kind of like finding a murder scene...you know there was a 'murderer'. Your objection still amounts to quibbling over why the word "murderer" is brought up at a murder scene.

5) exotic matter exists

How 'exotic' it is is debatable, given if it does exist, there's vastly more of it than 'regular matter'. Maybe we're the 'exotic' part. Anyhow, the vast preponderance of evidence is in favor of there being unseen matter, since modifying our understanding of gravity has proved so fruitless. We just don't know what that exotic matter is.

6) exotic matter emits gamma rays

It might - and the likelihood is actually pretty strong that it would. The Steuckelberg mechanism or kinetic mixing have both been proposed, and both instances would quite obviously have the effect of a dark matter particle emitting a measurable gamma ray line.

7) exotic matter emits x-rays

That's yet to be confirmed and possibly wrong.

Each of these claims have been made by astronomers in the media over the past month.

Why, oh why, do you only read the media as your source of scientific information, given your oh-so-awesome talent in physics and knowledge superior to all other cosmologists? Oh right, that's because it's the only thing you actually understand....dumbed down press releases. Nothing changes.

Not one is supported by empirical laboratory evidence

Actually, the point is that in the last month a great DEAL of support was just shown for each of these ideas, from empirical evidence.

and every single claim is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy run amok.

I'm not sure you quite understand what affirming the consequent is and how you show a particular case to be false in logical reasoning. To do this, you have to show that there are reasonable, known alternative explanations for the second step, which you have not done, or even attempted to do. You don't get to claim affirming the consequent without that - because then you're essentially arguing that "because we cannot prove anything for certain, to a certain point, and there will always be a point where doubt can be invoked no matter how silly, all science is an affirmation of the consequent and thus science itself is invalid"....which is obviously churlish.

For example

a) I have a headache
b) A symptom of measles is headache
c) Therefore I have measles.

The argument is actually sound unless you can name a plausible secondary class for b), whereupon it the argument can be said to be affirming the consequent. If you have a headache it is entirely possible that you do have measles. The point is that other things can cause headaches - many things in fact - thus we know the argument is not sound and affirming the consequent. Logically speaking, there is a requirement for additional information not contained within the argument and the argument hinges on the semantics of the defined classes. For example

a) All squigglemediggles are bloopity
b) I am bloopity
c) I am a squigglemediggle

C) is not necessarily false. The point of affirmation of the consequent is that c) does not necessarily follow, NOT that c) is necessarily untrue, which is what you clearly think raising this logical fallacy does for you. What scientists are trying to do - all scientists is do add an extra clause:

a) All squigglemediggles are red
b) I am red
b2) We know of nothing else red except squigglemediggles and have strong evidence from different lines of enquiry to show that nothing else can be red
c) I am a squigglemediggle

Do you see the point? These findings are examples of b2). Once you've got a mountain of b2), then c) becomes more and more likely. Sure, you can say that this morning's earthquake in California was caused by big space aliens jumping up and down in the Mojave desert, it's just unreasonable.

Not to mention, you've now got to explain these findings in relationship to your own ideas and how your own ideas explain such spectra, as well as all the other data previous that points to the simple likelihood that you are just completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Michael]

Had to stop back in to see how Michael explained some of the findings of the last week. I was at the UCLA symposium for Prof Cline's announcements, and couldn't but suppress a chuckle a few times. Then to read the BICEP paper...just awesome.

I also got a good laugh at the "WIMPS did it *in spite of LUX findings*" paper. That was a riot! I haven't (and probably won't till after work) yet had time to get through the "The inflation deity gave us B-modes" paper yet, but I'm sure I'll have a few choice comments to make once I've finished it.

Michael, can you summarize briefly your objections to the excess in the BB spectrum, right where inflationary theories predicted, 5.2 sigma significance with numerous bootstraps done?

Predicted? Based on *what* empirical laboratory evidence did inflation ever *predict* anything?!?!? When was the first "prediction" of this observation made, and based on *what empirically demonstrated physics* was this prediction made?

Extragalactic point sources can be ruled out via the cross reference with PLANCK, and BICEP1 and BICEP2 show the same correlation.

It's pure baloney you can rule out *anything* that way! You have *no idea* how those signals got there, and *no* demonstrated relationship between those signals and your dead inflation deity. You can't rule out all other process in plasma that might produce such signals, particularly Birkeland currents. You guys rule things in and out with nothing more than handwave and 10 cents of math.

Or could you give your explanation of the data showing quite solid evidence for a 30 billion electron volt particle strongly consistent with both axion or WIMP models?

What *solid* evidence could you possibly be talking about? Your exotic matter claims completely blew up in your face over the past 18 months at LHC, at LUX and in those electron roundness experiments. I'd call your so called "strong evidence" more like "strong denial" and 10 cents of utterly falsified math!

Given that "dark energy" is the name we give for whatever causes the acceleration of the expansion of space-time, if indeed that is the correct explanation of the redshift data...it kind of does by definition. Again, it's kind of like finding a murder scene...you know there was a 'murderer'. Your objection still amounts to quibbling over why the word "murderer" is brought up at a murder scene.

Except space doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in the lab, and your sky deities are collectively and individually more impotent on Earth than your average concept of God! Your claims about "cause/effect' are all nothing more than affirming the consequent fallacies. In fact the whole "dark energy" fiasco was a feeble attempt to save your *otherwise falsified* claims about the *cause* of photon redshift!

How 'exotic' it is is debatable, given if it does exist, there's vastly more of it than 'regular matter'. Maybe we're the 'exotic' part. Anyhow, the vast preponderance of evidence is in favor of there being unseen matter, since modifying our understanding of gravity has proved so fruitless. We just don't know what that exotic matter is.

We know that since you 2006 lensing study that supposedly "proved' the existence of 'dark matter' that your galaxy mass estimates used in that study were *hopelessly flawed*. First we found out that you *botched* the mass estimates of the largest stars we could actually observe because you *underestimated* the amount of inelastic scattering going on in plasma. Then we found out you guys miscounted the number of average sized stars in a galaxy by a whopping factor of four. The following year we found out you miscounted the number of dwarf stars in the stellar infrastructure by a factor of 5-20.

All that in *addition* to those failed so called "tests' of your theory at LUX, LHC and the electron roundness experiments. Your exotic matter claims have been falsified 6 different times since 2006. Why bother even "testing"" your claims at LUX and LHC if you won't falsify you theory based on the negative results of your "predictions"?

It might - and the likelihood is actually pretty strong that it would. The Steuckelberg mechanism or kinetic mixing have both been proposed, and both instances would quite obviously have the effect of a dark matter particle emitting a measurable gamma ray line.

Blah, blah, pure speculation, blah! Show me one *real experiment* where exotic matter even showed up, let alone emitted light of *any* wavelength. Every single one of your claims is based upon a pure affirming the consequent fallacy run amok.

That's yet to be confirmed and possibly wrong.

What? You admit *any* of your claims might be 'wrong'? I"m almost impressed.

Why, oh why, do you only read the media as your source of scientific information,

Why oh way do you make stuff up like that? Talk about taking the low road in debate....

given your oh-so-awesome talent in physics and knowledge superior to all other cosmologists?

More strawmen I see. Your debate style is pretty much geared at the individual, particularly since your claims keep exploding in your face in the lab.

Oh right, that's because it's the only thing you actually understand....dumbed down press releases. Nothing changes.

Oh, I understand you cheap debate tactics all to well.

Actually, the point is that in the last month a great DEAL of support was just shown for each of these ideas, from empirical evidence.

False. There is no 'empirical evidence" linking inflation to *any photon behavior at all*. You *imagine* that you dead sky deity had some tangible effect on a photon, but alas he's more impotent in the lab than your average concept of God.

You have empirical evidence of photon redshift and photon polarization. You have no empirical evidence to link either one of those observations to you dead invisible inflation deity.

I'm not sure you quite understand what affirming the consequent is and how you show a particular case to be false in logical reasoning. To do this, you have to show that there are reasonable, known alternative explanations for the second step, which you have not done, or even attempted to do.

False. There was never a demonstrated cause/effect justification of your claim to start with! You never provided any real mechanism to "rule out" anything as a cause. You just magically *handwaved in* your claim without so much a single demonstration with a single photon.

How could you "rule out" anything?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1959ApJ...130..241W

I've got a call, but I'll tackle that last half of you post in a few minutes.

 

[Michael]

Do you see the point? These findings are examples of b2). Once you've got a mountain of b2), then c) becomes more and more likely. Sure, you can say that this morning's earthquake in California was caused by big space aliens jumping up and down in the Mojave desert, it's just unreasonable.

Your claim ultimately amounts to: 'You can't fully explain this morning's earthquake, or predict them yet via normal physics, therefore the "most likely cause" must be those pesky invisible aliens that keep jumping up and down on the crust, and here's the math to prove it!' That's not even an answer worth considering even if I do *not* know how to explain it!

You've never shown any cause/effect link to inflation and any behavior of any photon on *any* wavelength. You turn right around however and ask me to believe that inflation causes photon redshift *and* photon polarization. Why? Why on God's green Earth should I believe you? The phrase "I don't know' would be better than just making stuff up like you did!

 

[davidbilby]

I also got a good laugh at the "WIMPS did it *in spite of LUX findings*" paper.

Because the LUX findings aren't incompatible. There's entirely rational reasons why nulls could be found at LUX. The data sets aren't mutually exclusive, only restrictive (which is great, because it narrows the rather enormous electron volt field down).

That was a riot! I haven't (and probably won't till after work) yet had time to get through the "The inflation deity gave us B-modes" paper yet, but I'm sure I'll have a few choice comments to make once I've finished it.

Look forward to them.

Predicted?

Uh oh. Danger, Will Robinson. I think you're about to look like a fool.

Based on *what* empirical laboratory evidence did inflation ever *predict* anything?!?!?

Check!

Er....don't you know why gravitational waves are predicted in an expanding universe? Are you serious?

When was the first "prediction" of this observation made and based on *what empirically demonstrated physics* was this prediction made?

UM...let's stop right here. Do you not know the answer to this question? I'm guessing no, because you just asked it so forcefully like it was a clever question. I'll give you a clue. 1918.

Do you not realize what an idiot you now look? Let's address this first, forget the second half of my post, if you don't get this then you wouldn't even be able to get by the last year of high school physics today. You tell me the answer. It's basic.

 

[davidbilby]

I'm kind of astounded at that last bit. I just reread and yeah...you're actually asking why inflationary theories predict gravitational waves. You're actually asking what empirically demonstrated physics that prediction is based on.

Speechless.

 

[Strathos]

Excuse me if I start sounding a bit like AV, but whenever scientists announce that they've made some huge discovery before actually giving the details, the trend seems to be that it's not nearly as revolutionary and important as the hype would lead you to believe.

 

[Michael]

I'm kind of astounded at that last bit. I just reread and yeah...you're actually asking why inflationary theories predict gravitational waves. You're actually asking what empirically demonstrated physics that prediction is based on.

Speechless.

I'm asking you to demonstrate *any* part of your claim rather than it *all* being one gigantic affirming the consequent fallacy. GR theory predicts gravitational waves, not inflation theory. Your blatantly just riding the coattails of GR theory.

 

[Michael]

Because the LUX findings aren't incompatible.

In other words, in spite of the fact that LUX peaks in sensitivity in the very range where you're claiming your WIMPS are found, and it found nothing, you're still going to claim WIMPS did it anyway, and ignore the LUX findings entirely. There is no way to logically falsify your dogma. Even *negative* results are simply ignored.

There's entirely rational reasons why nulls could be found at LUX.

Ya, the primary one being that no exotic forms of stable matter exist in nature. That's the one you *won't* accept.

The data sets aren't mutually exclusive, only restrictive (which is great, because it narrows the rather enormous electron volt field down).

Translation: There's just enough wiggle room for a gap in there so I can sneak in my invisible friend.

Er....don't you know why gravitational waves are predicted in an expanding universe? Are you serious?

No, that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask you about GR, I asked you to demonstrate that your *invisible friends* are even needed to explain an expanding universe.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

I'll give you a clue. 1918.

Let me give you a clue too. Quit trying to ride the coattails of GR theory, and show me that inflation isn't a figment of your overactive imagination in terms of it's *tangible* (in the lab preferably) effect on a photon.

Do you not realize what an idiot you now look?

Do you not realize that your verbal abuse and strawmen won't work with me yet david?

 

[Michael]

Because the LUX findings aren't incompatible. There's entirely rational reasons why nulls could be found at LUX. The data sets aren't mutually exclusive, only restrictive (which is great, because it narrows the rather enormous electron volt field down).

This line actually demonstrates how out of touch with reality you've become. There is a *perfectly logical* explanation for gamma rays and x-rays from space. They occur naturally in our own atmosphere in fact. Do you know what their cause might be David? Why on Earth do I need WIMPS to explain gamma rays or x-rays?

The whole Lambda-CDM model is based on *willfully ignoring* the obvious answer, willfully ignoring the failed "tests" of the theory in the lab, and *willfully* affirming another consequent fallacy related to their own supernatural dogma. You failed three huge tests of your theory, six when we count all that stellar infrastructure that you missed, and you *still* ignore the *most likely cause* of gamma radiation in plasma. Absolutely incredible.

 

[Michael]

Given that "dark energy" is the name we give for whatever causes the acceleration of the expansion of space-time, if indeed that is the correct explanation of the redshift data...it kind of does by definition. Again, it's kind of like finding a murder scene...you know there was a 'murderer'. Your objection still amounts to quibbling over why the word "murderer" is brought up at a murder scene.

This line is actually pretty funny IMO. You don't even know if "space" does any magical expansion trick in the first place. You certainly don't know if "space expansion" can "accelerate either.

You have a dead body with a knife wound it's it back and he died of photon redshift.

Instead of assuming the cause of death was a knife (movement/inelastic scattering), you claimed an invisible knife (space expansion) was the cause of death. When the invisible knife theory wouldn't work, you added an invisible slingshot to speed up the invisible knife?

That SN1A data actually *falsified* your oversimplification fallacy about the cause of photon redshift. You couldn't however just let your claims about the invisible cause be falsified, so you *added a new invisible cause as a sidekick! Wow!

Nothing can falsify your beliefs about the cause of redshift, not lab results, and not "tests" done by observation either.

Likewise nothing can falsify your claims about long lived forms of exotic matter. That failure at LUX literally went in one ear and out the other, just like those electron roundness experiments and those three big time falsifications of your galaxy mass estimates. Your claims about exotic matter have actually been falsified *six* times, three times by observations, and three times based on *direct experimentation*. Nothing puts a dent in your dogma, not even inconvenient facts!

 

[Old Ned]

lol @ Micheal... Dude I quite like you and respect your right to believe what you wish, but just skimming through this thread and seeing your huge posts, one after another... I'm pretty sure any psychologist would layterm your reaction as "Scrambling" You're defending too hard
You are showing fear, calm down dude

I haven't had time to look deeply into this discovery, but from what I gather it's been confirmed and is arguably one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all... I feel I'm right in saying that instead of saying that we have models and mathematics that predict... we can now say we actually have something that came directly from the Beginning of the Universe... I'm excited

Anyone wishing to debunk it, please do, I'm quite certain those in the know would love to hear it because as we know... Scientists kind of want to be wrong because they love questions over answers.... the only good answers are the ones that lead to more questions

 

[Michael]

lol @ Micheal... Dude I quite like you and respect your right to believe what you wish, but just skimming through this thread and seeing your huge posts, one after another... I'm pretty sure any psychologist would layterm your reaction as "Scrambling" You're defending too hard
You are showing fear, calm down dude

Fear of what exactly? Fear of impotent on Earth sky deities? Hardly.

I haven't had time to look deeply into this discovery, but from what I gather it's been confirmed and is arguably one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all... I feel I'm right in saying that instead of saying that we have models and mathematics that predict... we can now say we actually have something that came directly from the Beginning of the Universe... I'm excited

Lambda-CDM made all kinds of claims and predictions about WIMPs and dark matter theories. All of them were falsified. How come you're only interested in something *positively* slanted at the theory, and not interested in areas where those oh so important 'predictions' bit the dust?

Anyone wishing to debunk it, please do, I'm quite certain those in the know would love to hear it because as we know... Scientists kind of want to be wrong because they love questions over answers.... the only good answers are the ones that lead to more questions

How exactly does one "debunk" something intangible that no longer even exists? It's like trying to debunk a dead deistic religion. Even david's assertion about gravity waves was a perfect example of him trying to gain credibility for his theory by trying to *ride the coattails* of GR theory. GR theory doesn't depend on inflation, or dark energy, and neither does the concept of gravitational waves. Did you even know that?

 

[Old Ned]

Fear of what exactly? Fear of impotent on Earth sky deities? Hardly.

Michael, the fear is that your pride will be hurt because it means you may have to admit you are wrong.

As for the rest, dude I'm not getting into it with you, why do you not make your points to those who have the power and knowledge and equipment to test these things... you are currently arguing against some of the greatest minds on Earth... I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say.

Me?... I'm just excited at a great discovery

 

[Michael]

Michael, the fear is that your pride will be hurt because it means you may have to admit you are wrong.

My pride's been hurt plenty of times in the past and I've lived to tell about it, and my pride will get toasted plenty of times in the future too. I'm really not worried that much about it. If it happens it happens. Then again, by their own "design", it pretty much *cannot* happen in my lifetime in terms of anything actually showing up in the lab. The exotic matter claims are the only part that could be tested in the lab and they've all come up dry. Even if they found some exotic matter, it wouldn't justify any of their claims about the cause of photon redshift.

The whole Lambda claim is physically unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a lab, so you can pretty much forget about me ever being "proven wrong" on that whole part of their theory.

As for the rest, dude I'm not getting into it with you, why do you not make your points to those who have the power and knowledge and equipment to test these things... you are currently arguing against some of the greatest minds on Earth... I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say.

Me?... I'm just excited at a great discovery

If they actually discovered gravitational waves, that's great. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other. It still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with inflation theory. GR theory *predicts* gravitational waves with or without inflation, and with or without dark energy. The fact they even "market" gravitational waves as a "successful prediction" of inflation theory is pure nonsense. It's a successful prediction of *GR theory*, not *inflation theory*. Me? I'm just disgusted that they simply swept all that falsification of CDM under the rug, and they are again trying to ride the coattails of GR theory.

 

[bhsmte]

lol @ Micheal... Dude I quite like you and respect your right to believe what you wish, but just skimming through this thread and seeing your huge posts, one after another... I'm pretty sure any psychologist would layterm your reaction as "Scrambling" You're defending too hard
You are showing fear, calm down dude

I haven't had time to look deeply into this discovery, but from what I gather it's been confirmed and is arguably one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all... I feel I'm right in saying that instead of saying that we have models and mathematics that predict... we can now say we actually have something that came directly from the Beginning of the Universe... I'm excited

Anyone wishing to debunk it, please do, I'm quite certain those in the know would love to hear it because as we know... Scientists kind of want to be wrong because they love questions over answers.... the only good answers are the ones that lead to more questions

Very observant and right on target IMO

 

[davidbilby]

If they actually discovered gravitational waves, that's great.

5.2 sigma. Yeah, it's pretty much a done deal. Looking forward to that coming past six sigma in the next year.

It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

If your cosmology has no explanation for gravitational waves of this kind (which it quite obviously doesn't), it's a huge amount of skin of your nose. No. Wait. It's your nose off your nose, in fact. What is your explanation of the perturbations in the CMB exactly fitting the pattern we expect to see should gravitational waves be responsible (quantum perturbations expanding to an enormous scale)....and why does your model for the CMB predict their existence?

It still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with inflation theory.

The existence of gravitational wave perturbations in the CMB has no other explanation at present. You've certainly suggested none. The perturbations are of exactly the kind and magnitude one would expect (and as numerous papers have modeled) from the expansion of quantum perturbations in the primordial universe.

They are of exactly the kind NOT expected from other theorized sources of gravitational waves such as neutron stars, white dwarves, extragalactic point sources.

Have you anything intelligent to say about the topic other than rehashing of your debunked talking points? Anything beyond your magic falsification plasma pouring from every crevasse of the universe?

 

[davidbilby]

This line is actually pretty funny IMO.
You don't even know if "space" does any magical expansion trick in the first place.

We don't 'know'. We're pretty sure though - after this month, sure to a remarkable degree. It's a theorized idea to explain the specially independent, wavelength independent cosmological redshift. It's the only model we have that fits. It has a requirement - we should see perturbations in the CMB from the gravitational waves emitted from the collisions of things like black holes. Those can be mathematically modeled. We just found data that pretty much exactly matches the theory.

You certainly don't know if "space expansion" can "accelerate either.

We know the exact mathematical model by which it should, if it does, and so far it fits.

You have a dead body with a knife wound it's it back and he died of photon redshift.

Simile and analogy as concepts are lost on you aren't they?

Instead of assuming the cause of death was a knife.

Sigh. Forget it.

(movement/inelastic scattering)

It can be neither of those things, because neither of those things can produce the observed results. To extend the analogy, you're looking at a knife wound and suggesting a grenade did it.

you claimed an invisible knife (space expansion) was the cause of death. When the invisible knife theory wouldn't work, you added an invisible slingshot to speed up the invisible knife?

It, alas for you, works very well. Because we know it's not a grenade that did it.

That SN1A data actually *falsified* your oversimplification fallacy about the cause of photon redshift. You couldn't however just let your claims about the invisible cause be falsified, so you *added a new invisible cause as a sidekick! Wow!

Nothing can falsify your beliefs about the cause of redshift, not lab results, and not "tests" done by observation either.

You have none of those things. You've attempted some truly feeble claims at it so far, but nothing more.

Likewise nothing can falsify your claims about long lived forms of exotic matter. That failure at LUX literally went in one ear and out the other

For an armchair physicist with no qualifications whatsoever you're pretty ballsy. No, they didn't go in one ear and out the other. I have good friends involved in the work at Sanford and read the data (the actual data) well before you did. You don't even realize that LUX alone won't be enough to do any "falsification" for simple geographic reasons (can you tell me what those are?)...let alone the fact the constraints from LUX aren't actually a problem at all, they were kind of the POINT of the experiment? The idea is to narrow down the field and that's what happened. You seem to think the field's somehow "gone completely", which demonstrates you know not of what you speak.