Jump to content

Talk:Matt O'Dowd (astrophysicist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for comment

[edit]

Support of an alien contactee by O'Dowd should be included? I believe that the information is well-referenced and supported by various sources. I have proposed and included the following text, based upon the documented recorded sources by Matt O'Dowd himself. Theoretical1A9 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC) He is also a supporter of the alien contactee[1][2][3] Jean-Pierre Petit's model of the universe, which O'Dowd has publicly stated is "sophisticated".[4][reply]

References

  1. ^ "Les Ummites". La Cinq (in French). La Cinq. 1991. 53 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Affaire UMMO / Conférence de presse à Montréal". OrandiaTV (in French). OrandiaTV. 1991. 58 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
  3. ^ "Contacts Cosmiques avec Jean-Pierre Petit". NURÉA TV (in French). NURÉA TV. 25 October 2018. 134 minutes in. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
  4. ^ O'Dowd, Matt (7 February 2019). "Sound Waves from the Beginning of Time". PBS Space Time. PBS. 16 minutes in. Retrieved 8 February 2019. An alternate model that how negative mass might behave: in so-called 'bimetric gravity' you can have positive and negative masses, but each is described by its own set of Einstein field equations. That's kinda like having 'parallel spacetimes', one with positive and one with negative masses, which can still interact gravitationally. In these models, like masses attract and opposite masses repel… and you don't get the crazy 'runaway motion' that occurs if you put both positive and negative masses in the same spacetime. So no perpetual motion machines… It can also be used to explain dark energy and dark matter. An example is the Janus model of Jean-Pierre Petit. This is a much more sophisticated model than the one by Jamie Farnes. It is however just as speculative.
@Theoretical1A9: I see no indication that the avenues suggested at WP:RFCBEFORE have been used, let alone exhausted; so why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I somehow misinterpreted the correct use of the procedure. The edits were previously added, but this ended up bordering on an edit war, and so I have been seeking to include external views and resolve the issue correctly through formal procedure. Given the contentiousness of the issue (see the Jean-Pierre Petit page), it felt best to seek formal resolution from more experienced editors. Third opinion or dispute resolution are good to know about for the future, so thank you for highlighting that. Theoretical1A9 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theoretical1A9: I've replied over at Talk:PBS Digital Studios, and the points there are essentially the same as what I'd say here, so I won't repeat them here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]