This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Julian Barbour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Julian Barbour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)