<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Velocity, acceleration and gravity in Einstein's relativity · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1608.07136/</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/1608.07136/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Velocity, acceleration and gravity in Einstein's relativity — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15554970</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1608.07136:15554970</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:49:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;One relevant reaction to this paper (especially because there was no direct agreement with the article by any scientist) is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07136 &amp;quot;Every now and then some confused authors use wrong, non-covariant, definitions of velocity, acceleration and gravity, based on their vague Newtonian intuitions and hidden in a superficial, often purely semantic, relativistic disguise. A recent example of such a confusion (Gorkavyi &amp;amp; Vasilkov, 2016) is discussed at the end of this Note.&amp;quot; It concludes: &amp;quot;The paper by Gorkavyi &amp;amp; Vasilkov (2016) is not even wrong, it is simply a…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1608.07136/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>gr-qc</category></item><item><title>Velocity, acceleration and gravity in Einstein's relativity — mentioned by acqq</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15554223</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1608.07136:15554223</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Even if you wrote in your later replies here that (your words follow) &amp;quot;the math in the original article is more or less solid, no errors were found since publication in 2016&amp;quot; that statement seems quite dishonest, as you also wrote later, as you communicated with me, that you are aware of the direct rebuttal, which was published shortly after the article appeared, which I link here and quote the abstract if full: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02882 &amp;quot;We show that a recent assertion [arXiv:1608.01541] that gravitational wave emission can lead to a repulsive force explaining the accelerated…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1608.07136/"&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>
