Talk:Lambdavacuum solution

Work in progress

I'll fix it later tonight!---CH (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, mea culpa--- if I can't fix it today, I'll flag it with "attention" or remove the empty sections.---CH (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Students beware

I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.

I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. I hope for the best, but the subject of this article is closely related to some controversies in physics and I have reason to believe that at least some future versions may contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Be wary also of external links to other websites which may do likewise.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointless article

There is no good reason for this article, when the one on the cosmological constant covers the same material more carefully. Note that it is not "more sensible" to move the cosmological term into the stress-energy tensor, because that also imposes an otherwise unjustified relationship between the energy and pressure of the vacuum. The c.c. article in its current form is careful to avoid making unfounded assertions. — DAGwyn 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. That article completely fails to mention any of the lambda-vacuum solutions mentioned here, and is primarily concerned with the standard model of cosmology. The vacuum solutions listed here are cosmologies, none are the standard cosmology. This is effectively a math article; the other is a physics article. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)