<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Real Problem with MOND · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.1320/</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/1112.1320/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Real Problem with MOND — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34182907</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1112.1320:34182907</guid><pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2022 07:50:55 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The Problem with MOND&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.1320/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item><item><title>The Real Problem with MOND — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19602699</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1112.1320:19602699</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 06:40:54 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It simply matches the measurements. Modern science has available modern technology to measure so much and with such a precision that any theory that attempts to be scientifically accepted has to match with the existing measurements. The only approach that is not &amp;quot;dark mater&amp;quot; which is not completely disqualifying itself on all scales (by not matching anything) is MOND, which is still more &amp;quot;let&amp;#x27;s try to find some formulas that can match at least some observations&amp;quot; than something that even now can be consistent with all observations and measurements. Still, where MOND doesn&amp;#x27;t match the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.1320/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item><item><title>The Real Problem with MOND — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19538921</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1112.1320:19538921</guid><pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:44:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Dark Matter &amp;gt; Superfluid Dark Matter As far as I see, from three theories you listed, two are the dark matter theories. The only &amp;quot;alternative&amp;quot; from your list is MOND and as far as I know it has more problems than it can solve: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/theres-a-debate-raging... &amp;quot;The tests on the largest scales give us the best tests for dark matter. And these are the ones that dark matter not only universally passes, but that MOND has failed spectacularly for, on every account, for the past 35 years. Among cosmologists*, there is no debate, because there is no alternative to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.1320/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item><item><title>The Real Problem with MOND — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8204236</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1112.1320:8204236</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:00:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The next part, linked now at the end, is also informative: http://briankoberlein.com/2014/08/20/already-know-quite-bit/ Especially for the graph taken from http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1320&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.1320/"&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>
