<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Did GW150914 produce a rotating gravastar? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.08759/</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/1602.08759/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Did GW150914 produce a rotating gravastar? — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13248864</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.08759:13248864</guid><pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2016 06:20:11 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Is there any empirical evidence that favors classic black holes over gravastars Yes. http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084... (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.08759) So you&amp;#x27;re still left with gravastar models that can co-exist with black holes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.08759/"&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>
