<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Anti-gravity à la Carlotto-Schoen · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1611.01808/</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/1611.01808/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Anti-gravity à la Carlotto-Schoen — mentioned by codethief</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35731192</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1611.01808:35731192</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2023 17:05:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; He mentioned something about negative mass, which is maybe the handwavium equivalent of anti-matter in science fiction? Well, anti-matter actually exists but its mass is positive. Also, the anti-particle of the (hypothetical) graviton is the graviton itself[0], so all in all nothing fancy happening there. &amp;gt; Gravity only attracts. It never pushes away. Cosmic expansion would like to have a word. (Though, admittedly, expansion doesn&amp;#x27;t happen in gravitationally bound systems, so from this point of view your statement is of course correct.) &amp;gt; The one guy said the biggest problem with gravity is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1611.01808/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.DG</category></item></channel></rss>
