<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>MOND and its bimetric formulation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1310.3373/</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/1310.3373/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>MOND and its bimetric formulation — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32439431</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1310.3373:32439431</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:44:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; We actually already know GR must be wrong because of its singularities This is not why we &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; GR must be wrong. You keep making very strong assertions that any expert -- including those not hostile to MOND, or even positively in favour of properly capturing the empirical MOND relation into some other theory (whether that&amp;#x27;s the standard one or one like Bekenstein&amp;#x27;s) -- simply would not make. I do not know what you are trying to do here on HN, but it does not seem to be an attempt to honestly help people who are interested in dark matter but who lack expertise; it doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be an…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1310.3373/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item></channel></rss>
