This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Biography:Science and Academia This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported bythe science and academia work group (assessed asHigh-importance). An editor has requested that animage orphotograph beadded to this article. Physics:BiographiesMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byBiographies Taskforce.

65.185.213.33 added this article and several others to the Pantheists category, without adding any sources for that information. Is it vandalism?Charivari07:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Charivari03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone visiting this page might find the Wikipedia articleArrow of time useful for further reading.. There is no mention of Julian Barbour therein (yet).DFH17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbour's arguments concern rather technical questions about the structure of general relativity and classical gravitation.HaludzaHaludza10:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAntic-Hay (talk •contribs)15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

There should be a link to peopl with opposite ideas, like Lee Smolin.— Precedingunsigned comment added by93.62.13.201 (talk)02:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Smolin often talks about Barbour in his books... but holds a COMPLETELY OPPOSITE view, like a realist position towards time.— Precedingunsigned comment added by93.63.96.28 (talk)17:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• Biography articles of living people
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Wikipedia requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Wikipedia requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• Start-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles

• Noindexed pages