Does time and tide wait for none ?

"Time and Tide wait for none" is an oft-repeated adage. I am not quite sure whether it is an adage or a proverb. To avoid an unwarranted controversy, let us call it a proverbial adage. We know very little about this adage, except that we repeat it like a parrot, of course,with some difference and the difference really matters in real life.

We know neither time nor tide very well to give such generalizations. Time as we know is only by its measurement, that is by the clock we hang in our homes. That time waits for the replacement of battery or winding of the spring when its potential energy drops. But deeper understanding of time still remains a challenge for the science community. Time by the clock has no relation to Time which goes with Tide.

The proverbial adage gives a feeling that time and tide are independent and does not wait for either and neither waits for any other. can that be true?

Can tide be independent of time? It can only be independent of time shown in the clock(tide will happen even if there is no cell in the clock). But tide cannot happen without time which is independent relatively to tide. Tide cannot be independent of time and has to wait for the latter, be it a low tide or a high tide.

Moving on, time is a very difficult concept to crack. However we do know that tide is dependent on the gravity of the moon and earth. What is interesting here is the relation between time and gravity.

Time can be thought as analogous to motion of earth. Like time, motion of earth is unidirectional,continuous and eternal. In fact one can argue that time is only a measurement of motion (At this point, i believe so). The units of both merge at some level (higher or lower?)

So tide cannot happen without time and time without motion. which is first is a futile argument for now. Assuming that motion is a "relatively" independent variable, rest of the parameters depend on it. Now moving from relativity to relative independence, what is this motion all about and what causes this motion. Its the gravity of the sun, moon, other planets and probably other galaxies. But so far as the tide is concerned, it is also caused by gravity of the moon. But that in turn is dependent on the relative position of the earth with respect to moon. So tide is dependent on earth i.e. motion i.e. time and that is dependent on sun,earth,other planets, other stars, our galaxy and probably other galaxies.

It is however an altogether different question whether it was moon or earth first? water or motion first? gravity or motion first? These are as simple as asking whether it was egg or chicken first?

"ಸಾಫಲ್ಯ" ---- ಕೈಲಾಸಂ

After seeing plays like Ammavara ganda, Home rule, Poli kitty and huttadalli hutta written by T.P.Kailasam, I had a kind of idea about the style of Kailasam's writings. Most of the plays had a comic mix of English language in Kannada script. Most of the comic scenes are attributable to the blend of two languages.


Another trait of kailasam was to show the social situation or critique a social situation in a comical way. So i had a kind of idea about what to expect in the next play written by Kailasam which i wanted to see "Saafalya" meaning fulfillment. This play was staged at Ranga Shankara on Saturday 21 February at 7:30 P.M.


I did read the review on the internet. The play was about Kailasam's imagination of the death of Ekalavya, once an envy of Dronacharya and Arjuna (In the epic Mahabharata). I found the plot interesting since there is no mention in Vyasabharata about Ekalavya's death but Ekalavya does figure in the list of people killed by Krishna.


Kailasam was known to be an eccentric. I understand from my aunt who has read and heard about Kailasam much more than i have that Kailasam was agnostic when it came to issues of religion and god.


My understanding of Kailasam's style and the plot of the play itself created a kind of expectation in me about the play. But What was in store?


There were only two characters in the play on stage and one vocal character rendering only voice from back stage.


There were only two characters in the play Mr.Krishna and Mr.Ekalavya. The play started by Krishna dressed in jeans and baniyan and characteristic peacock feather on his floppy hat climbing down the stairs throwing toffees to the audience.


He meets Ekalavya on the stage who will be preparing himself for the kurukshetra war. He would be fighting for the kauravas against pandavas since his guru dronacharya was with the side of Kauravas. Ekalavya will be charged up and his mind will be full of revenge against Arjuna, the latter preparing to wage a war against his Guru.


A Dialogue builds up between Krishna the cheater and Ekalavya. At the outset Ekalvya will not recognize Krishna and talk to him like any other person. But at regular intervals he will be amazed by the radiance of Krishna, his knowledge about Ekalavya etc.


A philosophical dialogue builds up between the two. A boring prolonged dialogue about right and wrong continues for over 10 minutes. Ekalavya goes on to explain that he protects the innocent deers from the cunning fox. He protects the innocent from the treacherous animals. He and his mother would sacrifice the fruits in the trees for migrant birds. Cunning Krishna responds that he too does similar noble acts by protecting the noble from the ignoble, innocent from the cunning and so on. Both of them say that they treat the innocent lives like their brothers.


The dialogue goes into the phenomenon of death. Krisha will explain to Ekalavya that people take rebirth if they have unfulfilled desires. So he tells ekalavya that one must die without any desire.


As the play continues into relatively deeper philosophy, Krishna asks Ekalvya why the latter sacrifice the fruits in the trees for migratory birds. When Ekalavya will be explaining about the joy he and his mother derive by watching the birds enjoying the fruits, Mr.Krishna will shoot him with a pistol. Yes he will shoot him. Kailasam's style is visible only in this scene.


Then the dialogue continues wherein Ekalavya will accuse Krishna of treachery. Krishna explains to Ekalavya that death must also be welcome and show his dashavathara. The acting was so bad that it took me some time to understand that it was dashavathara.
Finally Ekalavya requests that his mother must not feel the pain of his death. Krishna grants the wish by killing Ekalavya's mother soon after Ekalavya's death.


For me and my friends, this was the most boring play we have ever watched. Though it was for just an hour, there was neither entertainment nor a message. It was just a boring dialogue. Since i have had discussion in my friend's circle about deeper philosophical topics like absolute truth, right and wrong, the dialogue about right and wrong never appealed to me and my friends.


So far as Kailasam was concerned, this play would definitely qualify him to be an eccentric. This was so totally different from others, probably the right word is to describe Kailasam is versatile and not eccentric. This play did not have a single comic scene. Apart from Krishna's attire and the mode of killing, nothing was characteristic of kailasam as i understand kailasam.


My feeling is that T.P.Kailasam would have written this play towards the end of his life (he did not live for long). May be he was bought into the idea that death was panacea for all the ills in the society. This is only my assessment. I do not know whether this is true or no. But by and large the message of the play was that there is nothing right or nothing wrong in this world, Its all relative and death must not be unwelcome and its one of the solution to move away from pain.


I do not know what made Kailasam write this play. Its totally different from Kailasam's other plays. it is usually said in Academic circles that only SOME has been understood about Kailasam and its impossible to understand SUM of Kailasam.

Mistakes i make in mathematics

Look at the derivation for the roots of a quadratic equation.
Here the roots have been derived by differentiating the equation!!!.
From the roots, the equation is got back by complimentary operation.
But the roots so got by differentiation is not the same as the roots as got using sridhara's formula.
There is a severe fundamental error in the derivation shown above; its simple but serious. Find out.

Confusion in the Election commission

The chief election commissioner has hit the headlines recently for more than one reason. Apart from the general elections, there has been much talk about the powers of the commissioner vis-à-vis the other commissioners.

Unfortunately or fortunately, so far as the latter is concerned, much of the opinions in the media and academic circles have gone against the CEC. Given the opinions expressed, it may be apposite now to dispassionately analyze the position of CEC in the light of the arguments put against him.

The correct legal position of the CEC as laid down by the supreme court of India in T.N.Seshan Vs union of India(1995) is as follows” “The provision that the ECs and the RCs once appointed cannot be removed from office before the expiry of their tenure except on the recommendations of the CEC ensures their independence. Of course, the recommendation for removal must be based on intelligible and cogent considerations, which would have relation to efficient functioning of the Election Commission. That is so because this privilege has been conferred on the CEC to ensure that the ECs as well as the RCs are not at the mercy of political or executive bosses of the day. This check on the executive’s power to remove is built into the second proviso to clause (5) to safeguard the independence of not only these functionaries but the election Commission as a body [emphasis added].”

The second proviso to Article 324(5) states categorically that the ECs shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.

In the same case, the supreme court goes on to add that “While is it true that under the scheme of Article 324 the conditions of service and tenure of office of all the functionaries of the Election Commission have to be determined by the President unless determined by law made by Parliament, it is only in the case of the CEC that the first proviso to clause (5) lays down that they cannot be varied to the disadvantage of the CEC after his appointment.” Such a protection is not extended to the ECs. But it must be remembered that by virtue of the Ordinance the CEC and the ECs are placed on a par in the matter of salary etc.

“The second ground relates to removability. In the case of the CEC he can be removed from office in like manner and on the like ground as a Judge of the Supreme Court whereas the ECs can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC”.

Recently, these issues have under arguments and discussions. The overwhelming opinion is that the CEC cannot recommend the removal of EC suo motu. The argument put forward is that, the CEC cannot exercise his power suo motu because the members of the commission and the CEC are of equal status. Further if such powers are conferred to CEC, he will himself be an instrument of oppression. The election commissioners will have to function under the fear of removal if they voice their opinion against the CEC. Further, some scholars have argued that suo motu powers to CEC would nullify the independent functioning of the election commission.

Assuming for a moment the above arguments are correct and CEC does not have the powers to recommend the removal of EC suo motu, then who can ask the CEC to give his recommendations? It is obviously the president under the advice of the cabinet.

This puts the EC in a difficult position vis-à-vis the CEC. The law says that the CEC and EC are equal but insulates the CEC from removal on advice of the cabinet. But the EC does not enjoy similar privileges. He can be removed on the recommendations of the CEC (case being referred by the president on advice of the cabinet). There seems to be some confusion here.

If the CEC can be an instrument of oppression on the EC, so can be the cabinet. The EC has to work under the threat of CEC if the latter enjoys suo motu powers. Otherwise if the union cabinet has the powers to advice president on removal of the EC, EC will have to work under the threat of the cabinet. (We must note here that EC does not have to be removed in the manner in which a Supreme Court judge is removed.). In the era of coalition politics, it makes more sense to insulate the election commissioners from the cabinet rather than the CEC.

If all the election commissioners have to be treated on par and equally, then all of them must enjoy similar privileges and similar insulation from political and executive bosses and from each other.

In the present case, the CEC has recommended the removal of an EC suo motu. It is still not clear if he enjoys such powers and the repercussions of the same if he really enjoys such powers. However if the recommendations for removal are to be based on intelligible and cogent considerations, which will have relation to efficient functioning of the Election Commission, then the CEC has defended himself by outlining the basis for his recommendations.

Relation between matter and motion?

Why do people grow old? Why is graying of hair or weakening of muscles attributed to age? What is this age? Why do people become weak at old age. Below, i put a theory to relate motion to time and time to matter.
I am 26 years old now and am healthy and all the organs are perfectly alright. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee is today 86 years old and suffering from multiple problems. If both of us were born healthy, why is that Mr Vajpayee is suffering today. Age is a straight forward answer.

But what the hell is this age? Is age time? Is time linear motion? Is it rotation? Is it revolution? Look at this, the earth has gone round the sun 86 times since Ataljee's birth and 26 times since my birth. So there has been more motion of earth since his birth. Can this motion be attributed to age? Is weakening of body organs, graying of hair attributed to age which in turn is attributed to motion (Not necessarily motion of earth).


So matter (graying of hair or weakening of heart) is dependent on motion (motion of earth). If they are related, it must be is some relation. How about their dimensions? are they equal on both sides.?At the outset No, since the LHS is angular motion and the right handside????(change in colour of hair, weakening of lungs etc). What happens when we die?? matter disappears(or does it?) and motion continues.


Moving ahead, What is responsible for motion? Let us treat motion as an independent variable (or is it?). Surely there are other bodies keeping the earth in its position and responsible for its motion. May be gravitational force of sun, other planets,.What is responsible for other planets to be in their respective position? May be Other planets and sun. What is responsible for the solar system to be in its position and its motion, the galaxy. What is responsible for the galaxy to be in its position and motion? influences of other galaxies.


At the instant of birth (or conception), there are a fixed set of coordinates (time and space)(Does time and space merge somewhere?). These coordinates are unique to every birth (highly debatable and questionable). So the instant we are born , there is a set of planetary and galaxial influences on us (Influence in terms of force, magnitude of which is dependent on space(location)).To substantiate, the planetary or galaxial influences on every point of the earth is not uniform. (think of g, earth's own gravity is not uniform). So at any instant of birth, there is a set of influences which are unique. Every change in location(space) brings with it a change in influence, the magnitude of change is a function of original influence or force. So the change in matter is not only dependent on motion but also space dependent in turn on motion.


As an example, two people born at the same instant of time only 1 M apart or 1 mm apart may grow world apart in attitude, intelligence and physiology.Because distances magnify with space and time so does forces of influence.