text:
Big Daddy Kane

Antonio Hardy (born September 10, 1968), better known by his stage name Big Daddy Kane, is an American rapper, producer and actor who began his career in 1986 as a member of the Juice Crew. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential and skilled MCs in hip hop. Rolling Stone ranked his song "Ain't No Half-Steppin" number 25 on its list of The 50 Greatest Hip-Hop Songs of All Time, calling him "a master wordsmith of rap's late-golden age and a huge influence on a generation of MCs".

1980s
In high school, Kane met Mister Cee, who would later play an integral in Kane's career when he served as his DJ. In 1984, Kane became friends with Biz Markie, and he would co-write some of Biz's best-known lyrics. Both eventually became important members of the Queens-based Juice Crew, a collective headed by renowned producer Marley Marl. Kane signed with Tyrone Williams's (Marl's manager) and Len Fichtelberg's Cold Chillin' Records label in 1987 and debuted the same year with the 12" single "Raw", which was an underground hit. The name Big Daddy Kane came from a variation on Caine, David Carradine's character from the TV show Kung Fu (1972–1975), and a character called "Big Daddy" whom Vincent Price played in the film Beach Party (1963).

Kane is known for his ability to syncopate over faster hip hop beats, and despite his asthmatic condition, he is acknowledged as one of the pioneering masters of fast rhyming. His sense of style is renowned and set a number of late-1980s and early-1990s hip hop trends (high-top fades hairstyles, velour suits, and four-finger rings). The backronym "King Asiatic Nobody's Equal" is often applied to his moniker.

He released his debut album on Cold Chillin' Records in the early summer of 1988 called Long Live the Kane, which featured the hit "Ain't No Half Steppin". The following year, Kane released his second album and biggest hit to date, It's a Big Daddy Thing, which included 1970s sample throwbacks like "Smooth Operator" and the Teddy Riley-produced track "I Get the Job Done", which hit the R&B top 40 during the closing of the 1980s. He also had a memorable verse on the Marley Marl-produced track "The Symphony" released in late 1988, which included Juice Crew members Craig G, Masta Ace, and Kool G Rap.

1990s
In 1990, Big Daddy Kane was featured on Public Enemy's Fear of a Black Planet on the song Burn Hollywood Burn in which he discussed the depiction of African-American characters particularly in the Jim Crow Era. Big Daddy Kane also referenced Aunt Jemima as an example of the way Black women where characterised and given low status roles, with the lyrics "And Black women in this profession / As for playing a lawyer, out of the question / For what they play Aunt Jemima is the perfect term". Big Daddy Kane's lyrics can be seen to still having contemporary meaning after the company which produced the character removed Aunt Jemima from packaging 30 years after Burn Hollywood Burn was released.

Big Daddy Kane appeared on Patti LaBelle's 1991 effort, "Burnin. He provided the rap chorus to the single "Feels Like Another One". He also appeared on the video release "Live in New York".

He contributed the song "'Nuff Respect" to the soundtrack of Ernest Dickerson's feature film debut Juice, which starred Omar Epps and Tupac Shakur, further demonstrating his fast lyrical delivery.

In 1991, Kane won the Grammy Award for Best Rap Performance by a Duo or Group for his performance on the Quincy Jones collaborative track "Back on the Block" from the album of the same name.

Widely regarded as one of the greatest rappers during the golden age of hip hop, Kane's experimentation with R&B beats and his alignment to the Five Percent Nation drew criticism. Later albums, such as Looks Like a Job For..., were acclaimed, but he was never able to return to the commercial and artistic success of It's a Big Daddy Thing. However, he still tours extensively.

As an actor, he debuted in Mario Van Peebles' 1993 western Posse, and appeared in Robert Townsend's 1993 film The Meteor Man. He also posed for Playgirl and Madonna's book Sex during the 1990s.

During the early 1990s, Jay-Z toured with Kane, and Kane helped him early on in his career. Ice-T says: "I actually met Jay-Z with Kane. Kane brought Jay-Z over to my house." Kane himself says that Jay-Z was not technically his hypeman in the true sense of the term: "he wasn't a hypeman, he basically made cameo appearances on stage. When I would leave the stage to go change outfits, I would bring out Jay-Z and Positive K and let them freestyle until I came back to the stage." Jay-Z was also featured on Big Daddy Kane's track "Show & Prove" from Daddy's Home (1994), as well as in the video.

In 1995, Kane recorded with MC Hammer and Tupac Shakur on the rap song "Too Late Playa" (along with Danny Boy). He was also mentioned to signing with Death Row East in 1996. In 1997, Kane teamed up with Frankie Cutlass on his third single title "The Cypher Part 3" and some of Marley Marl Juice Crew veterans. In 1998, he released his final solo album to date, Veteranz' Day. It received mixed reviews and did not sell well. However, Kane did not give up rapping and made many appearances in the 2000s.

2000s
In 2000, Big Daddy Kane appeared on Tony Touch's "The Piece Maker" mixtape alongside Kool G Rap and KRS-One. A rejuvenated Kane occasionally collaborated with a variety of hip-hop artists, including A Tribe Called Quest, Jurassic 5, Little Brother, and DJ Babu of the Beat Junkies. He released two singles, the Alchemist-produced "The Man, The Icon", and the DJ Premier-produced "Any Type of Way" (on which he discusses urban collapse in post-9/11 New York City ("Giuliani got New York lookin' like it's Amistad") and the erosion of the middle class.

Big Daddy Kane appeared on the trip hop group Morcheeba's 2003 single "What's Your Name".

In 2005, Big Daddy Kane was honored during the VH1 Hip-Hop Honors. After a medley of hits performed by T.I., Black Thought, and Common, he came out to perform "Warm It Up, Kane" with his old dancers, Scoob and Scrap. Kane and Kool G Rap can both be seen briefly in Dave Chappelle's Block Party.

In 2006, he appeared as a guest MC on the track "Get Wild Off This", produced by the Stanton Warriors for their Stanton Sessions Vol. 2 breaks mix. He also appeared alongside the Wu-Tang Clan, Rakim, and his longtime friends Busta Rhymes and Q-Tip in a segment of the 2006 Summer Jam concert (June 7, 2006), as part of an initiative by Busta Rhymes to honor the legacy of New York City hip-hop.

In 2007, a new track, "BK Mentality", was released on the mixtape compilation Official Joints. Kane also appeared on Joell Ortiz's The Brick: Bodega Chronicles mixtape.

Big Daddy Kane made a cameo in the 2008 video for "Game's Pain", a track by rapper The Game. The video also featured appearances by Raekwon, Three 6 Mafia and Ice Cube. Kane also appeared on the remix of "Don't Touch Me" by Busta Rhymes. Also in 2009, Kane played the role of Clay in the film Just Another Day. The film is the tale of two rappers, one poor and young, one older and successful. The movie follows them through a day of their lives.

2010s

Big Daddy Kane appears on one track on MA Doom: Son of Yvonne—the collaboration between MF Doom and former Juice Crew member Masta Ace. As of 2013, Kane was recruited by New York City power group Lifted Crew and R&B singer Showtyme to form a band called "Las Supper". The album, Back to the Future, was released on March 26, 2013.

On November 24, 2014, Big Daddy Kane discussed his upbringing, childhood influences, relationships, sexual experiences and Madonna's 1992 book Sex in an interview on the Dr. Zoe Today show. In 2016, he was featured on Tito Jackson's single "Get It Baby" in addition to appearing in the documentary Hip-Hop Evolution.

2020s
In June 2020, Kane released the single "Enough", aimed at addressing issues surrounding police brutality.

Legacy
Big Daddy Kane is regarded as one of the most influential and skilled golden age rappers. MTV put him at No. 7 in their "Greatest MCs of All Time" list. He is placed at No. 4 in Kool Moe Dee's book There's a God on the Mic: The True 50 Greatest MCs. About.com ranked him No. 3 on its list of the "Top 50 MCs of Our Time", and RZA listed him as one of his "Top 5 best MCs". In 2012, The Source ranked him No. 8 on their list of the "Top 50 Lyricists of All Time". AllMusic says "his best material ranks among the finest hip-hop of its era, and his sex-drenched persona was enormously influential on countless future would-be players", and describes him as "an enormously talented battle MC", "one of rap's major talents", refers to his "near-peerless technique" and "first-rate technique and rhyming skills", and says he "had the sheer verbal facility and razor-clean dexterity to ambush any MC and exhilarate anyone who witnessed or heard him perform". Kool Moe Dee describes him as "one of the most imitated emcees ever in the game" and "one of the true greatest emcees ever". Ice-T stated: "To me, Big Daddy Kane is still today one of the best rappers. I would put Big Daddy Kane against any rapper in a battle. Jay-Z, Nas, Eminem, any of them. I could take his 'Raw' 'swagger' from 88 and put it up against any record [from today]. Kane is one of the most incredible lyricists... and he will devour you on the mic. I don't want to try to out-rap Big Daddy Kane. Big Daddy Kane can rap circles around cats." His first two albums are also considered hip hop classics and Rolling Stone says, "he has received consistent critical kudos". In the book Rap-Up: The Ultimate Guide to Hip-Hop and R&B, Cameron and Devin Lazerine say Big Daddy Kane is "widely seen as one of the best lyricists of his time and even today regularly gets name-checked by younger dudes", and music journalist Peter Shapiro says Kane is "perhaps the most complete MC ever". Eminem references Big Daddy Kane in the lyrics to his song "Yellow Brick Road" from his album Encore, saying, "we (Eminem and Proof) was on the same shit, that Big Daddy Kane shit, where compound syllables sound combined", and he quotes the same lines in his book The Way I Am—this illustrates how Big Daddy Kane had an influence on both Eminem's and Proof's rhyme technique.

Studio albums

 * Long Live the Kane (1988)
 * It's a Big Daddy Thing (1989)
 * Taste of Chocolate (1990)
 * Prince of Darkness (1991)
 * Looks Like a Job For... (1993)
 * Daddy's Home (1994)
 * Veteranz' Day (1998)

Collaboration albums

 * Back to the Future with The Las Supper (2013)

Filmography

 * 1993 Posse as "Father Time"
 * 1993 The Meteor Man as "Pirate"
 * 2005 Dave Chappelle's Block Party as Himself.
 * 2007 Dead Heist as Hunter
 * 2008 Love for Sale
 * 2009 Just Another Day as Clay
 * 2011 Budz House as Keisha
 * 2016 Exposed as Jonathan "Black" Jones
 * 2018 Law & Order: Special Victims Unit as Ray Wallis / "Four Stroke"
 * 2024 ElemenTory as Chris Cunningham

title: Big Daddy Kane


text:
Talk:Comoving and proper distances

Universe or universe"
Shouldn't "the Universe" be capitalized when it refers to our Universe? David W. Hogg 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Speak Simple English!!!
Can someone translate this to Simple English?
 * Yes, PLEASE! This article is even more unfathomable than most scientific ones in Wikipedia.  And that's saying something.

 * "General relativity is also a local theory, but it is used to constrain the local properties of a Riemannian manifold, which itself is global. In the context of general relativity, the assumption of Weyl's postulate is that a favoured reference frame in space-time can be decided."

 * Gawd almighty.

 * Don't know if it's any better now, but I tried :-). I also tried to correct a boatload of technical errors. BTW, the above example was just pure techno-babble (in my opinion). Pervect 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Expert tag philosophy
This article could still use attention by an expert, but, couldn't any article?

My perception of the "expert tag" is that it should be applied to articles with technical issues, such as articles written by enthusiastic amateurs that need revision for factual accuracy.

This article previously had that exact problem. I think that I have now eliminated most of the factual problems with it, though there is certainly a lot that could be done to expand and refine the article. Most of the formulas are presented without motivation or derivation, for instance.

Pervect 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I improved the diction. It will be a little unclear as to what changes I made since I accidently (for a moment) pasted some extraneous text and submitted it. But I have removed that by now, and the article is now much clearer.Kmarinas86 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh wait, it shouldn't be that hard to compare them. I've reminded myself of the "compare selected versions" feature.Kmarinas86 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Notions of Distance in Cosmology page
The discussion/formula on distances is not entirely correct... and so probably confusing to some non-expert readers.

I think the suggestion that there should be some kind of notions of distance in cosmology page is a good one. The situation with the distance measures pages is kind of confused and disorganized, I think. There is now a page on Distance measures (cosmology) and a redirection from notions of distance in cosmology.

Hopefully this means that each of the pages on individual distance measures can now focus on the distance measure themselves (for example, should the comoving distance page really be defining the other measures and giving formulae for the proper motion distance?) and the Distance measures (cosmology) page can describe the overall idea and the relations between measures.

Specifically, I think a bunch of the material in the "other distances used in cosmology" might be better suited to the new page, since it discusses things beyond the scope of the title of this article. Does this sound good? Wesino 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I noticed that the whole article was tagged with a "merge" into Distance measures (cosmology). In my opinion this might be a bit much -- certainly comoving distance is important enough to have its own page?  I think that the comparison with other distance measures, though, should go on the distance measures page.  Any other opinions? Wesino 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Equation
$$ \chi = \int_{t_e}^{t} { c \; \mbox{d} t' \over a(t')}$$

Should there not be a "with respect to t" "dt" at the end of that? Like this: $$ \chi = \int_{t_e}^{t} {c \; \mbox{d} t' \over a(t')} \; dt$$ ?

Stuart Morrow 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it's with respect to $$ \; dt'$$Wolfmankurd 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Blanclar Right! —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

More on Distance Equation
What do the te and t refer to? The integration is performed along a path of constant cosmological time, so they can't refer to cosmological time (unless all distances are identically zero, which makes for a useless definition). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.148.10.80 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Confusion over terms
The use of technical terminology in this article is confused. Comoving distance and Proper distance are not the same thing in my books. In fact the article states: Most textbooks and research papers define the comoving distance between comoving observers to be a fixed unchanging quantity independent of time, while calling the dynamic, changing distance between them 'proper distance'. which is true, in which case we really shouldn't include proper distance as an alternative name in bold at the top of the article.

The following quote from the article is also wrong: Despite being an integral over time, this does give the distance that would be measured by a hypothetical tape measure at fixed time t. Surely this is the definition of proper distance but not of comoving distance, which is the distance travelled by a photon between two times, i.e. along a null geodesic. In fact, that whole paragraph (with the exception of the equation) is defining proper distance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmo0 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted that at a fixed time, comoving and proper distances are simply related by the expansion factor at that time, but I still think it's confusing. Cosmo0 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cosmo0 is right about confusion over "comoving distance" vs. "proper distance". The sentence in the article, "'The comoving distance from an observer to a distant object (e.g. galaxy) can be computed by the following formula:'" should read, "'The proper distance from an observer to a distant object (e.g. galaxy) can be computed by the following formula:'" Also, the following sentence presently included in the article just about had me convinced that the whole topic was a fallacy:

"“Despite being an integral over time, this does give the distance that would be measured by a hypothetical tape measure at fixed time t.”" What kind of tape measure is this; is it analogous to an ideal physical tape with infinite elastic modulus? What is meant by, “fixed time t”? Does this mean that the expansion of space is put on pause for an instant while the measure is being taken? Or does it mean that the tape only exists at the one instant when the distance is measured? Neither scenario is conducive to understanding. To make common sense of comoving coordinates, without resorting to general relativity, you need to postulate a tape that exists longer than an instant, and you must not pause the expansion even for an instant.

Suppose you have comoving galaxies, A & B, whose centers (in proper distance) are 1026 meter (ten billion light years) apart at time = t. Shortly before t, you place your tape measure in line between the galaxies with the center of the tape measure midway between them and comoving with them. This being an ideal tape measure, its length is fixed in its own inertial frame; the ends of the tape measure are therefore not comoving with the center of the tape and not comoving with the galaxies. While the ends of the tape remain a constant distance apart in the inertial frame of the tape, the proper distance between the galaxies is increasing at about 2.5 x 108 m/s (.833 c). (Actually, the relative motion in the inertial frame of the tape would be less than .833c because the time dilation would slow the expansion of space in the inertial coordinates of the tape. In the comoving frame of the galaxies, the relative motion would be less than .833 c because of the relativistic contraction of the tape; observers moving with the galaxies and with the ends of the tape would perceive the same relative velocity. The math for calculating that relative velocity is beyond my ability.) This gives relativistic motion between the galaxies and the ends of the tape, and it is not merely “apparent motion” because both the tape and the galaxy exist at the same place and time. If the tape measure has intermediate distance marks, near its ends they will be about half their correct distance apart according to observers moving with the galaxies; intermediate marks near the middle of the tape will be the correct distance apart in both comoving and inertial frames. Clocks moving with the ends of the tape will run about half as fast as the observer’s clock moving with the galaxy. If you hit the “pause” button to stop the expansion just for an instant, you would have each end of the tape in two places at the same time, and it would experience infinite acceleration. You would also be nullifying the gravity field associated with the expansion (acceleration being equivalent to gravity, according to Einstein).

Here’s my solution: Let’s use the same galaxies, A & B, as above. Instead of a tape, let’s postulate a measuring chain between the two galaxies. The length of each link is 1022 meter (1 million light years). Shortly before t, the centers of the links at opposite ends of the chain are fastened to the centers of the galaxies, and each of the remaining links is comoving with the galaxies, leaving an equal amount of slack between successive links. As t approaches, the slack disappears at a rate of about 25 km/s (.0000833 c). The chain and its links may be imaginary, but the relative motion between links is real. The relativistic contraction and time dilation of each link as seen from the adjacent link is also real, but due to the relatively short length of the links, the relativistic effects are insignificant (less than ten parts per billion). The last bit of slack disappears at t, giving the proper distance between the galaxies as the sum of the lengths of the chain links.

I propose the following to replace the present wording:

"“Despite being an integral over time, this does give the distance that would be measured at time = t by a hypothetical measuring chain of equally spaced comoving links at the instant when the expansion of space eliminates the last bit of slack between links. For each new t, a new measuring chain must be postulated, because the old hypothetical chain has snapped." "'For shorter links, relativistic contraction between adjacent links is proportional to the square of the length of each link. If each link is 1022 meter (1 million light years) long, relative motion between successive links is about .00008 c, and relativistic contraction of successive links relative to one another is then less than ten parts per billion. That is why relative motion between comoving galaxies is referred to as only apparent, though in inertial coordinate systems, it is real.”" ' --Onerock (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The sentence "Comoving distance is the distance between two points measured along a path defined at the present cosmological time." is correct as it stands. Cosmological distance is by definition the same as proper distance now. An alternative might be to use a different symbol for the time of reception and keep t as the usual integration variable, for example:

 * $$ \chi = \int_{t_e}^{t_r} {c \; \over a(t)} \; dt$$

 * That gives the comoving distance between the emission at time te and reception tr where those can be any positive values. The sentence which follows is less clear: "For objects moving with the Hubble flow, it is deemed to remain constant in time.". Since it is defined as the separation now after accounting for the Hubble Flow, it must be constant by definition so "deemed" appears misleading, implying there is some choice about whether it should be constant or not.

 * The other sentence you highlight is also arguable though not for the reason you give, comoving distance is what would be measured by a ruler at one particular epoch, i.e. now. The sentence says: "Despite being an integral over time, this does give the distance that would be measured by a hypothetical tape measure at fixed time t, i.e. the "proper distance" as defined below, divided by the scale factor a(t) at that time." but the equation is only valid if "at that time" means "now" (as is stated) and "a(t) at that time" is 1 by definition so is redundant. I would suggest that that sentence is removed, the case of proper distance at any time is accurately covered by the second bullet point in the "definitions" immediately following so removal would not lose any content. George Dishman (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Question Re Distance Equation
In the integral defining the comoving distance, what does c denote? It appears in the equation without any explanation. Is it the speed of light? -99.242.17.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Yes, c denotes the speed of light. It's now corrected. Daniel Olivaw (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Layman summary added to lede
I've added a layman-accessible summary to the lede. Among other things, we get questions about what "comoving distance" is every couple of months at quasar, with complaints that this article isn't helpful for describing that. The lede should fix that.

I realize that the description is approximate. This is intentional, for the sake of simplicity, and noted in the lede.

Per the other threads on this talk page, it's possible that my edit (and the quasar article) should use the term "proper distance" instead of "comoving distance". I don't have sufficient expertise to settle that question in the above thread; I suggest bringing it to the attention of the people at WT:AST to get it resolved (and to propagate corrections to other articles if changes are needed). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comoving frames and FTL travel
I've often heard it said that "FTL [Faster Than Light] allows time travel". Nonetheless, it seems to me that virtually all matter is, to some approximation, at rest relative to a "comoving frame" (if I understand the idea properly; note that this link doesn't go anywhere useful). By which I mean that if you jump the spacelike interval (comoving distance) to any number of comoving frames at the same time from the creation of the universe, you never move backwards toward the creation of the universe, and thus you never move backward in time relative to any of those frames. It also follows that if only one's velocity relative to the comoving frame would carry over in such a jump, then you come out "more or less at rest" wherever you end up, little things like the whirl of galaxies aside. (Though since revolving matter drags spacetime along with it a little, would the comoving frame pick up some of its velocity...?) Can someone point to a source that investigates such speculations?

Also, has anyone used particle accelerators specifically to observe the properties of matter propelled so as to be at rest relative to the bulk of material objects in the universe in relation to their local comoving frames? Wnt (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * With regards to your first question, it's the jump you're performing that's allowing time travel. It'd allow time travel even with slower-than-light velocity changes; I drew an animation of this a few years back that shows how. The type of FTL travel that allows this is something that lets an object that starts right next to you travel in a path that takes it outside your future light-cone (moving in a "spacelike" direction rather than a "timelike" direction). You can always find a different inertial frame at the stationary observer's location that makes a trip like that look like a trip back in time (and act like it, too, after you apply various slower-than-light velocity changes).

 * For distant objects, though, FTL relative motion isn't local; all it means is that certain objects are outside of our observation horizon (signals we send can't ever reach them, and signals they send can't ever reach us, once this situation occurs). For the metric expansion of space, this is sometimes described as the two objects remaining stationary while space itself expands between them in a way that causes their distance to grow at a rate faster than the speed of light, rather than the objects themselves moving.

 * Regarding creating objects that are at rest relative to the comoving coordinate system, any sufficiently hot gas has that; we're actually moving pretty slowly (non-relativistic speeds) compared to the frame represented by the cosmic microwave background. There's nothing particularly special about that frame, other than the fact that matter in our tiny region of the primordial universe was once on average at rest with respect to that frame. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for responding! I recognize that any spacelike trip will look like it is time-reversed from some other frame of reference.  For example, waving a laser pointer across the surface of the Moon could look like it is done in opposite directions depending on the observer.  But if the only spacelike trips allowed are those that move "upward" (toward spacetime positions further from the origin of the universe) no closed loop can actually be traversed; it's only an appearance of backward time travel.  Would you agree?

 * Relative to the CMB, the Earth is moving roughly 370 km/s = 1/810 c. Ignoring relativistic corrections this average speed (from Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) is reached at 370000 m/s = sqrt (2RT/M) = sqrt (16.6 J g/K * T) (for hydrogen) = sqrt (1660 m^2/s^2 K *T) = 40.7*sqrt (T); T= 9100^2 K = 83 million K - more for anything but monoatomic hydrogen.  This is too hot for the Sun, but has been achieved in tokamaks and in nuclear weapons.  I wonder how closely one could check those for conceivable anomalies... Wnt (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Regarding stars, the Sun's corona is about 3 MK, with regions approaching 10 MK, the Sun's core is at about 15 MK, and the radiation belts around Jupiter (larger versions of the van Allen radiation belts) reach 100 MK. The cores of stars burning helium reach 100 MK or higher, and the cores of stars burning carbon reach 600 MK or higher. Bare protons have about the same mass as monatomic hydrogen, so your numbers hold for them. Electrons, being lighter, move much faster at any given energy.

 * Regarding time reversal, one of the core points of relativity (SR and GR) is that all inertial frames are equally valid ways of looking at the universe. If you're moving FTL relative to someone nearby, you don't just look like you're travelling back in time from some viewpoints, you are travelling back through time (and can intersect your own worldline, per my diagram). Once you're outside the forward light-cone, observers will disagree about whether your light-cone worldline is moving towards or away from the origin of the universe, and their observations are all correct. The only things they'll agree on are where "light-like" surfaces are (how fast light moves). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The premise was to suppose FTL were possible only in relation to a set of comoving reference frames, rather than that all were equally valid. (allowing FTL trips backward in time only relative to fast-moving frames, not frames at rest relative to Earth or distant galaxies, i.e. only forward in relation to comoving time, thus never in a closed loop).  I'd been thinking that this "comoving" terminology would make it easier to explain my question, or might have been used to explore it by others, but unfortunately I think I'm still being too confusing.
 * Is there a theoretical reason to think that in other regions of the primordial universe, which we can't see now, matter had a different average velocity? So far as I know there's no clear sign of variations in Hubble's Law or the microwave background other than due to our own velocity... why shouldn't all the matter in the Universe have one single average velocity defining an absolute rest frame everywhere that varies only due to cosmological expansion and other distortions of spacetime? Wnt (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The problem is, there is nothing in the equations of general relativity (or special relativity) to impose a preferred reference frame like that. Your statement is equivalent to saying "let's pretend that GR is not a good description of gravity and motion". No evidence of a preferred frame has turned up, despite a lot of searching. Reality appears to be very, very consistent with relativity at all energy scales below the Planck scale.

 * Regarding whether or not all parts of the early universe had matter in the same inertial frame as our region of it, there isn't any way to collect observational evidence for or against this. I've seen arguments for spacetime that moves around a lot in the early universe, but the simplest models doesn't require it to do so. All we can say is that our universe seems to be derived from a region with fairly consistent motion. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Equation requiring a clean-up:
$$ \chi = \begin{cases} \sinh^{-1} r, & \text{if } k=-1 \ \text{(a negatively curved ‘hyperbolic’ universe)} \\ r,                 & \text{if } k=0 \ \text{(a spatially flat universe)}  \\ \sin^{-1} r,  & \text{if } k=1 \ \text{(a positively curved ‘spherical’ universe)} \end{cases} $$

1) I think that sin/h^-1 is better expressed as arcsin/h.

2) arcsin/h does not accept metric argument values; arcsin(1 meter) is meaningless.

I assume that the intended expressions would rather be R×arcsinh(r/R) and R×arcsin(r/R), respectively. Hilmer B (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 * In the coordinate system being used here, $$r$$ is normalized by the curvature of the manifold and therefore dimensionless – this is exactly what you have typed, but in the article's equations $$r = r'/R $$ where $$r'$$ is the dimensionful radial coordinate. I think a better indication of this would be useful in the article, though. Dylancromer (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Still - to a common reader it must be utterly confusing with a distance without a metric dimension. Four lines further down says. "the proper distance d(t) at an arbitrary time t is simply given by d(t) = a(t) χ where a(t) is the scale factor" (click that link!). And as far as any reader understands it: 0
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   13:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comoving distance → Comoving and proper distances – The article is clearly about both of the distances - and even starts by comparing the two. See no reason why the preference should be given to the comoving distance O l J a  10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please translate the page
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8769:F400:A82C:4E97:EBEE:1488 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of the Universe
Although a lot of scientists cackle the same, there's no proof of the Universe actually expanding. The stuff within the Universe may move away from each other and create the illusion that it's expanding, but it's simply not true. The Universe consists out of three entities, time, space and filler (matter/energy). The one that came last moving around in infinite space, does not expand or contract the space, but is simply motion within that infinite space. Also, timespace does not exist, these are separate, time and space, of which time came first, then space. The filler came last. Without time, there can be no change, and thus there can't be change from a time without space to a time with space, so time came before space. (Anything can only have one state at any given time, including Δt=0 and t=0) Since filler can't exist or move or move away from the initial point of release without space, the filler came after space. So, time first, space second, filler last. And if the filler moves, it does not expand space, it just moves within it. Simple, yes?

(The fact that many state the same, does not make true. Once people all said that the Earth was flat, and everyone 'knew' it. Lack of knowledge leads to misunderstanding, and yet, each misunderstanding was never true.)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Comoving and proper distances


text:
Talk:Innuendo

After adding most of this article, I realised that it overlaps largely with Double entendre. Are they close enough to being the same thing that they should be combined into one article? Tjwood 20:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I say it should be changed, because in the top section it states how 'Double entendre' is commonly unintentional, while innuendo is always intentional. --Sadistic monkey 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we mention Mad Magazine's "Guaranteed non-slanderous campaign smear speech", which satirizes the US politics thing? It's composed entirely double entendres and innuendos. Uncle Ed 17:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone else heard in-your-end-o? Me lkjhgfdsa 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Just me then Me lkjhgfdsa 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny entry
should be published, but not here :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.157.94 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Innuendo as innuendo
I've heard the word "innuendo" described as, in itself, innuendo, as the word commonly makes people think it is sexual in nature, when it is not necessarily. Does that make any sense? --BDD 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

External link is dead. --711groove 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pussy" pun

 * For example, in Are You Being Served?, Mrs. Slocombe makes frequent references to her "pussy", such as "It's a wonder I'm here at all, you know. My pussy got soakin' wet. I had to dry it out in front of the fire before I left." A child might find this statement funny simply because of the references to her pussy cat, whereas an adult would detect the innuendo (pussy is sexual slang for vagina).

There is a very similar paragraph at double entendre (one was obviously taken from the other, though the wording is different now); I posted about this on its talk page. To that, I'll add that the problem here is even worse, because the example seems to be used specifically as an example of a pun a child would not get, whereas, as I said at the other page, an older child would very easily get it. There are many better examples that are readily understood by adults, but not children. The pun about "melons" further down the page is a much better example. Perhaps this paragraph should be replaced by the one about "melons"? I'm not sure enough to "be bold" and commit to it, though. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw -minor nit- isn't "pussy" sexual slang for "vulva", rather than "vagina"? Speicus (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

lack of reference
The reference at the bottom of the page, about U.S. Politics, appears to no longer be available. It references the url http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000386;p=1 All that is there is a page that says that "You have requested a topic that does not exist!"

In my opinion, a forum is not a particularly reliable reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.128.40 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe it's just me?
In my opinion this page sounds uncyclopedic. No offense to the writer.

75.193.121.57 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructure....
I agreed with the above comment so I did a big old re-structure - before there was very little structure at all, which is what made it seem too dense to read.

The paragraph on cartoon humor gives no real information - just a huge list of cartoons. This should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecold.trashcan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

-- Yeah but I don't believe its appropriate to place citation needed subscripts for every cartoon show. I think its perfectly safe to agree that those shows all use this figure of speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.142.229 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo is not always disparaging, nor directed against a particular person. The introduction to this article seems to equate it to sexual harassment, (which it can be a form of, admittedly).128.227.173.14 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)anonymous

The entire section of Innuendo in the media is rather unnecessary. It is just a list of media that employ innuendo when the list is only a small handful of potentially endless forms of media which use innuendo. It contains little useful information and should be simply removed f4hy (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Concluding Paragraph
The final paragraph is stuffed with innuendo. It has been very well preformed, and drawn out at length. As such, I with to congratulate whoever was so talented in their chosen arena. The largness of the innuendos is impressive, but the appropriateness of such behavior, talented and experienced as its performer may be, seem suspect in an encyclopedic setting. Perhaps it could be given in Talk as an example of the kind of technique one should strive to employ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.82.82 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It should be abhorred as plagiarism. That paragraph has been taken directly from the Uncyclopedia article on the same subject.. --64.131.34.55 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pantomime
Some mention needs to be made of pantomime, in which innuendo plays a major part. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh no it doesn't. 95.123.54.33 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sonic X?
As well as a few of the other shows? Can someone cite sources or at least give examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.134.249 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons
Anyone else feel that that list is a bit too long? Llxwarbirdxll (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section on Sexual innuendo in media
Right now this is a laundry list of disparate instances with little to no critical commentary or encyclopedic value. I removed this section because it was becoming a dump. At best, it needs a complete overhaul. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs better cock picture
As the article stands now, it is unclear whether the cock is indeed standing erect. He could be seated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.47.76 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Journalism
This article seems to be mostly about innuendo as euphemism or risque humor. Might be good to talk a little about innuendo as in yellow journalism, e.g., strong claims made without evidence, expressed indirectly so as to appear innocent or avoid legal liability. For instance, this article implies that former national security advisor Susan Rice has gotten rich through unethical or illegal means, without directly saying so or offering any hint of how she might have done it: https://investmentwatchblog.com/fun-fact-susan-rice-has-a-net-worth-of-50-million-as-a-career-u-s-public-servant-with-a-maximum-salary-of-172000/

Articles of this type may use rhetorical questions, rather than direct statements: "First of all, how is someone like Susan Rice worth between $23.5 and $43.5 million? If the media did their jobs, maybe we’d know how a UN diplomat could amass so much wealth." Or they may make statements attributed to vague sources ("Some claim that..."), etc. Innuendo is a way of leading readers to believe the article says something it doesn't actually say, using carefully-worded sentences that don't directly libel anyone. Thotso (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

ICarly
Are innuendos from ICarly and other Nickelodeon shows noteworthy? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Innuendo


text:
User:Nofussruss

My name is Russ, and the username nofussruss was a nickname given me when I was working summers in Dills Olde Towne Saloone in Traverse City, Michigan (links to be added soon).

In any case, Wikipedia looks very cool, and I hope to contribute to it in some meaningful way.

title: User:Nofussruss


text:
Skalla-Grímr

Grímr Kveldúlfsson, usually called Skalla-Grímr, was a Norwegian who lived in the ninth and tenth centuries. He is an important character in Egils saga and is mentioned in the Landnámabók.

Family
Skalla-Grímr was the son of Kveldúlfr Bjálfason and Salbjörg Káradóttir. He had one brother, Þorolfr, and was related to Ketil Trout on his father's side and Eyvind Lambi on his mother's. He was married to Bera Yngvarsdóttir and had two sons, Þorolfr and Egill, and two daughters, Sæunn and Þórunn. His ancestor, Hallbjorn, was Norwegian-Sami.

Feud with King Harald
Skalla-Grímr's brother Þorolfr was a member of King Haraldr Fairhair's retinue, although Kveldúlfr refused to swear allegiance to the king. When Haraldr had Þorolfr killed, Skalla-Grímr and Kveldulfr attacked a ship, this belonging to the brothers Sigtryggr and Hallvarðr, these brothers had been the cause of Haraldr's distrust with Þorolfr, spreading lies and rumors to convince their king to let them take Þorolfr's land. Skalla-Grimr knew of this and saw their ship flying their banner not far from the coast. Skalla-Grimr took the chance and set out for the brothers with his father and other warriors, and killed all but two of those on the ship, including two of the King's cousins.

Settlement in Iceland
Following these killings, Skalla-Grímr and Kveldúlfr set out for Iceland. Kveldúlfr fell sick due to his berserkr rage in the former battle as his body was becoming too old to fight. He died early in the voyage, however, before he died, he commanded his ship's Captain (There were two ships, Skalla-Grimr was not on this one.) to throw overboard his casket, and wherever it may come to the shore is where the ships will settle. The Ship Captain did as Kvedulfr directed, and when he arrived in Iceland, he discovered the casket had come ashore in the Mýrar district, near Borg. When they arrived at Iceland they found Skalla-Grimr and told him of his father's death, and of his wish. Skalla-Grímr and the settlers built his house at Borg, and settled the entire region.

Skalla-Grímr lived to an old age and died at Borg.

Poetry
Skalla-Grímr was a prolific poet, and composed this stanza: ''Nú's hersis hefnd við hilmi efnd; gengr ulfr ok örn of ynglings börn. Flugu höggvin hræ Hallvarðs á sæ. Grár slítr undir ari Snarfara.''

Now the nobleman (Kveldúlfr) has exacted revenge upon the king (Harald Fairhair); now wolf and eagle tread on the king's children. The hewn corpses of Hallvarðr (Hallvarðr Harðfari and his people, that is the enemies) flew into the sea; the grey eagle tears the wounds of Snarfari (Sigtryggr Snarfari was the brother of Hallvarðr Harðfari).

According to the late scholar Bjarni Einarsson this poem, by using end rhyme, "if authentic" is a unique phenomenon in late ninth-century Old Norse poetry.

title: Skalla-Grímr


text:
Gastouni

Gastouni (Γαστούνη) is a town and a former municipality in Elis, West Greece, Greece. Since the 2011 local government reform it is part of the municipality Pineios, of which it is the seat and a municipal unit. The municipal unit has an area of 59.325 km2. Gastouni is situated in a flat rural area, 5 km from the Ionian Sea. The river Pineios flows into the sea near Gastouni. The town is 6 km south of Andravida, 4 km east of Vartholomio, 11 km northwest of Amaliada and 26 km northwest of Pyrgos. The Greek National Road 9/E55 (Patras - Pyrgos) and the railway from Patras to Pyrgos pass east of Gastouni. There is a 12th-century Byzantine church in the southwestern quarter Katholiki.

Subdivisions
The municipal unit Gastouni is subdivided into the following communities:
 * Gastouni
 * Kardiakafti
 * Kavasila
 * Koroivos
 * Lefkochori
 * Palaiochori
 * Roupaki

People

 * Nikos Kachtitis, writer
 * The Sisinis family
 * Chrysanthos Sisinis
 * Georgios Sisinis, one of the famous Greek revolutionary leaders of the area

title: Gastouni


text:
Silsbee

Silsbee may refer to:

Places

 * Silsbee, California
 * Silsbee, Texas
 * Silsbee, Utah

People with the surname

 * Ann Loomis Silsbee, American composer and poet
 * Joseph Lyman Silsbee, American architect
 * Nathaniel Silsbee, American politician
 * Nathaniel Silsbee, Jr., American politician and businessman

title: Silsbee


text:
Talk:Skalla-Grímr

Article created
I wrote this article somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Feel free to delete it, if you think it is too trivial for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Then again, we have separate articles for the entire Simpson family, so why not keep Skalla-Grímur? Io 20:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Old Norse vs. English endings
I'm going to change all the names back to their Norse form, as it is better to be consistent. Thanks, JG 28 (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Skalla-Grímr


text:
User talk:Dacolbertnc

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. The article you created at Dux Ryu appears to be copied from http://www-scf.usc.edu/~ninjitsu/. Unless you are the author of the original information and you are able to release it under the GFDL then the page will need to be deleted. Please see Copyrights for further information. Even if this is a copyright violation, we would still welcome any original contributions from you. See the instructions on how to edit a page for more info. Thanks. Angela. 20:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Albemarle Correctional Institute, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing!
 * The website that you copied for the prison articles appears to be copyrighted. Please do not create similar articles until this is resolved. Thank you, Kjkolb 08:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Rory 0 96 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dacolbertnc


text:
User talk:P G Henning

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. For ideas of what to put on your user page, see User page.

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 20:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fontaine Stravinsky Saint Phalle.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fontaine Stravinsky Saint Phalle.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk  14:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)  -- ViperSnake151  Talk  14:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeff Long (writer)

The article Jeff Long (writer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Winning one award doesn’t automatically make you notable, also there is little evidence of notability present in the article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:P G Henning