Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dark Matter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 65035918" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>All those "odds" that you're talking about were made irrelevant by the much more sensitive LUX results. Had that 68% figure been correct or useful in the first place, LUX would have recorded around 1600 hits over the length of the run time of that *more sensitive* test. LUX recorded exactly none. It turns out that the .19% dark horse option was actually the "correct" answer according to LUX.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 65035918, member: 627"] All those "odds" that you're talking about were made irrelevant by the much more sensitive LUX results. Had that 68% figure been correct or useful in the first place, LUX would have recorded around 1600 hits over the length of the run time of that *more sensitive* test. LUX recorded exactly none. It turns out that the .19% dark horse option was actually the "correct" answer according to LUX. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dark Matter
Top
Bottom