Talk:Julian Barbour

Pantheist?

65.185.213.33 added this article and several others to the Pantheists category, without adding any sources for that information. Is it vandalism? Charivari 07:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbour himself states in his book "The End of Time" that he and Lee Smolin "tend towards pantheism" when he discusses the role of God in a timeless universe. I didn't know how I was supposed to cite a category affixation. ~ 1-31-06

I'm much obliged for the clarification.Cheers. Charivari 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Arrow of time

Anyone visiting this page might find the Wikipedia article Arrow of time useful for further reading.. There is no mention of Julian Barbour therein (yet). DFH 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbour's arguments concern rather technical questions about the structure of general relativity and classical gravitation.HaludzaHaludza 10:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If no one outside WP (or barbour himself) has linked this idea and Barbour, a "see also" counts as original research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Rather technical questions about GR and gravitation" that world-leading experts on GR and gravitation regard as whole devoid of the slightest interest. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:28A0:D644:B4C5:415C (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Einstein quote

I removed the Einstein quote "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn, persistent illusion" since it doesn't do anything to support the concept of Timeless Physics, while the article made it seem as if it did, especially the reference to it as being in one of his last letters (as if it were some dying revelation of Einstein's). Rather, the statement simply describes the situation given by ordinary Special Relativity, where any two events in spacetime with a time-like separation can, in an appropriate reference frame, be seen such that the two are simultaneous, the first precedes the second, or vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antic-Hay (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

well, yes, but what is the "over and above" that said concept would furnish? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:28A0:D644:B4C5:415C (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

POV!

This is such an unusual idea that there must be opposing opinions. The article has an advertising tone and a complete lack of criticism. 198.228.228.164 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Collin237

There should be a link to peopl with opposite ideas, like Lee Smolin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.13.201 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Smolin

Yes Smolin often talks about Barbour in his books... but holds a COMPLETELY OPPOSITE view, like a realist position towards time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.96.28 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Carroll quote

I am not trying to defend Barbour's ideas here, but I find the quote by Sean Carroll at the end of the criticism section utterly respectless. It should be replaced by a sentence along the lines of "Caroll critizes timeless theories of physics on the basis of ...". One may argue that the quote says more about Carroll than it says about Barbour, but I still believe it to be inappropriate. --75.111.216.203 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You should've removed it right away, it's mere opinion with no foundation, could he make this any clearer? -82.83.18.105 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed his opinion, but it is carefully written and explained, from a notable source, so it seems valid to me William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not inappropriate Caroll really is a world-leading expert, and to be honest he is putting it mildly. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:28A0:D644:B4C5:415C (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography

According to Enyclopedia.com he was born on February 13th 1937 https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/barbour-julian-b-1937 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloidl (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)