User talk:Ganeshsashank

Welcome!

Hello, Ganeshsashank, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Off topic in the hawking radiation talk page

You started a section called Probable proof for multiple universes? I am going to post my response on your talk page to avoid clutter on the wiki.

Easy there tiger. The universe is expanding and so the energy density of the cosmic expansion has yet to reach equilibrium. Entropy is increasing because the closer a system is to equilibrium, the less energy is usable for work. This does not, however, mean the universe is losing energy. Furthermore, the velocity of the outward expansion of the universe is accelerating. The energy required to expand the universe must come from inside the universe and so you would expect the expansion rate to slow down, however the opposite is occurring. Most physicists would attribute the dU necessary to the cosmological constant, or dark energy. I found this paragraph on the dark energy wiki.

The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −p dV, where p is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a box of vacuum energy actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, p is negative and, in fact, p = −ρ.

Any apparent losses of energy in the universe are accounted for. The concept of multiple universes is indeed interesting but there is no quantifiable way to measure them currently or is there any evidence they exist. Positive claims require positive evidence. Finally, as stated by user:khukri, this is not the place to test personal research. You should limit your posts to things that relate to hawking radiation. StephenPCook (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologized about the length of time it has taken me to respond, last month was crazy with finals and Christmas. There were a couple of things that I wanted to look up before I left a message and only recently had time to check them. Firstly, I'm a biologist by training and so I've had very little calculus and physics. I'm sure as an engineering student you'll be going much further in depth than I ever will into those fields so I'm not entirely sure my conceptual understanding is entirely accurate. Regardless, let me see if I can shed some light on some of the nonsensical results you're getting.

So, the formula for acceleration is more accurately written;

$a=\lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{\frac {v-u}{\Delta t}}$ Where $v=u+\Delta t$ and $u=v_{0}$

The function is only differentiable at $\Delta t=0$ if the function is continuous, which in the example you're using, it is not. This means the acceleration is undefined at $t_{0}$ and not infinity. You can't have a change in velocity if there is no change in time to measure it.

Further, from what I've read about general relativity and gravitational lensing, it is not the photon "experiencing" the force of gravity but rather the photon accelerating due to gravity's affect on spacetime. Massive objects bend spacetime into a curve and when a straight line goes through the curve (our photon for instance), outside observers see the line change direction. If you were the photon you would not notice any change in direction at all, nor would you speed up or slow down, it's everything around you that is changing. So the short answer is both yes and no at the same time...

Lastly, multiple universes is a real difficult theory to prove definitively (as you may be noticing ^_^). Since information cannot be transmitted over large distances faster than the speed of light, the cosmic background radiation is the limit of what we can see in the universe. Anything further away will be receding faster than the speed of light and the photons leaving a universe outside of our own will never reach earth unless the expansions overlap. That of course assumes that there is intermediate dimension(spacial and time) in between universes for the photons to be transmitted through. These dimensions may (probably) have began with the Big Bang and so there can be nothing before our universe; time began at it's creation. It would make Big Bangs that occurred previous to our own a problem. I can speculate blindly as well as the next guy, when really there needs to be evidence of multiple universes that is observable. We have none unfortunately so anything else is philosophy not science.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions.

StephenPCook (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, good, then you won't notice if I mess up the calculus definition too badly then! I'd hate to be making a fool of myself by talking about something I know nothing about (oops, too late). What I was trying to show was the differentiation function but replacing some of the math variables for ones used in physics. You are absolutely correct that $\mathbf {v} =\mathbf {u} +a\Delta t$ but since we're solving for acceleration, you put the a on the other side of the equation instead of with the velocities.

If you have this equation,

$a={\frac {v-v_{0}}{\Delta t}}$ where $v=v_{0}+\Delta t$

then with some algebra you can substitute

$a={\frac {(v_{0}+\Delta t)-v_{0}}{\Delta t}}$

then with algebra

$a\Delta t=(v_{0}+\Delta t)-v_{0}$

$v_{0}+a\Delta t=v_{0}+\Delta t$

the left side being the equation for velocity and the right being what we substituted in place of v. While I was reading about velocity and acceleration to check myself before I responded the first time, my head exploded because I started to understand what exactly each formula means outside of a bunch of variables. I've taken up the hobby of filling notebook pages full of derivations of formulae because I've never actually stopped to think about what each symbol stood for and how they are all related. So, thank you for allowing me to appreciate physics a whole lot more! Also, it gives me an excuse to use latex which is a cool language. The wikibook is very helpful if you'd like to take a look.

So, I don't believe the big bang is true, I know it is, I've seen pictures of it. Well, sort of. The CMB is radiation that's source is not an object like a star and is uniformly (well, more or less) distributed in all directions. This seems to be pretty compelling evidence that at some point the universe was much smaller and hotter than it is today. The only real question is that first fraction of second that can't be explained by current physics. Evidently, there is a project underway that will measure the CMB to a precision that will allow us to confirm something (i.e. our universe's parent universe) predating the big bang. Check out this video, it's where I saw it. I'm still not entirely sold on multiple universes until there is non-theoretical evidence to support it though. I think my bias is because, if they exist, we will never learn anything about them during my lifetime and the curiosity would kill me. We'll see in six years!

I like your ideas about human interactions. I think our environment plays a very powerful role on our thoughts and actions. I've noticed at times I feel like personalities are like energy fields that are repelling one another in some situations but attracting in others. I image that these fields would behave in a similar fashion that electron clouds behave. Based on the person's unique experiences, there are certain area's where electron density is low enough to attract other fields. However, if the "nucleophile" cannot attack the "carbocation," the electron clouds repel each other and no reaction occurs. Both molecules and people have to fit one another.

However, I'm fairly certain that the force of gravity of astronomical bodies has no effect on our decision making. Thoughts are the result of the firing of action potential in neurons in your brain. A neuron propagates a signal from one end (dendrite) to the other (axon) by rapidly depolarizing its membrane. Most (probably all) cells have a net negative charge in the interior of the membrane. This charge is maintained by actively pumping ions (Na+, K+) against the concentration gradient and out of the cell. Signals from another neuron cause gates in the membrane of the neuron to open in sequence allowing the ions to enter in a cascade. These pulses of salt ions is the "signal" that allows you to feel, move, and think. Your entire consciousness is a complex pattern of neurons relaying signals back and forth.

So if that's the case, then we should be able to measure the force these astronomical bodies have on the Na+ ions. If the ions are unable to enter the neuron to depolarize it, then the neuron won't fire. Potentially, the gravity from these objects could be stopping neurons from firing by this method. I did the calculations and found the attractive force a single Na atom experiences from the sun if it is on the Earth would be 2.26 * 10^-28 N. It would take this amount of force a little over an hour to accelerate the atom enough to move it 1/2 of a micrometer which is the radius of the axon of an average neuron. It's difficult to get a specific number but action potentials propagate a signal fast enough for you to wiggle your toes when you think it. By the time the sun's gravity had any effect at displacing Na+ ions, they will have been bounced around through ion channels countless times by the brain's regular processes. The gravity of astronomical masses have no effect on our decisions or even what occurs in our day to day lives.

It has been my experience, as a biologist, that humans do what they do because they are living organisms. Of course, I might be bias but I've found that natural selection is all the motive needed to explain all of our behaviors, it's all about the fitness. And since there has been no evidence to the contrary in explaining what we do, there really is no need for another explanation.

As always, if you have any questions, let me know and I'll try to see if I can answer them for you!

Good luck with your classes. StephenPCook (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shiveshwar

hii ra dis is siva......Siveshwar (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) hii

feelig too bad about tym table ra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siveshwar (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ganesh_sashank.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ganesh_sashank.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hai!! Ganesh.

hai Genius!! this is Pravallika. Pravshin90 (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!

hey ganesh .. thanks for solving that prob.Pravshin90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

Help in c prgmmin

write a prgm to enter the marks of a student , caluclate the avg n percentage.. if percentage>70 A grade, 60<%<70-B, 50<%<60 - C, 40<%<50 - D, else E .. display the grades using switch case..

#include<stdio.h>
main()
{ 
  float m1,m2,m3;
  int ch;
  float sum=0,avg=0,per;
  printf("enter the marks for maths , physics , chem\n");
  scanf("%f%f%f",&m1,&m2,&m3);
  sum=m1+m2+m3;
  avg=sum/3;
  per=(avg*100)/sum;
  printf(" Acquired percentage is %d",per);
  printf(" choice 1 if per>70\n");
  printf(" choice 2 if 60<per<70\n");
  printf(" choice 3 if 50<per<60\n");
  printf(" choice 4 if 40<per<50\n");
  printf(" choice 5 if per<40\n");
  printf(" choice 6 exit\n");
  printf(" ANY OTHER NO ....invalid choice\n");
  printf("enter the choice\n");
  scanf("%d",ch);
  switch(ch): 
  {
   case 1:  printf(" A\n");break;
   case 2:  printf(" B\n");break;
   case 3:  printf(" C\n");break;
   case 4:  printf(" D\n");break;
   case 5:  printf(" E\n");break;
   case 6:  printf(" F\n");break;
   default: printf(" invalid choice\n");
  }
}

IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT? Pravallika. Pravshin90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

File copyright problem with File:Equilibrium of force-sample problem.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Equilibrium of force-sample problem.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Syrthiss (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ganeshsashank, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Management Development Institute has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)