The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Partner artilce to retrocausality which is also up for deletion. This article is even worse having no sources that follow its reasoning and being almost completely original research amalgamation. In particular, the energy equation quoted is a pretty famous result from special relativity and certainly has nothing to do with causality in its bald form. The term itself is not used, and even the reference to Einstein is inappropriate (since German words are not neologisms when they are squashed together: Einstein wasn't referring to a new concept, he was describing the forward arrow of time when he used the term).
-- ScienceApologist 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Partner artilce to retrocausality which is also up for deletion. This article is even worse having no sources that follow its reasoning and being almost completely original research amalgamation. In particular, the energy equation quoted is a pretty famous result from special relativity and certainly has nothing to do with causality in its bald form. The term itself is not used, and even the reference to Einstein is inappropriate (since German words are not neologisms when they are squashed together: Einstein wasn't referring to a new concept, he was describing the forward arrow of time when he used the term).
-- ScienceApologist 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply