<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Alternatives to dark matter: Modified gravity as an alternative to dark matter · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1001.3876/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1001.3876/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Alternatives to dark matter: Modified gravity as an alternative to dark matter — mentioned by rsj_hn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34362935</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1001.3876:34362935</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2023 01:45:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Bekenstein wrote an interesting paper on MOND in 2010 here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3876 But again, the 2017 experimental data [cited previously] in support of Lorentz invariance and the 2016 bullet cluster data in support of dark matter basically killed MOND in the eyes of most researchers. As I said before, nothing wrong with writing papers exploring the consequences of MOND or trying to come up with alternatives, science does not work by consensus, but the bar for dropping Lorentz invariance is really high given the experimental support for it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1001.3876/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
