Understanding Capital Expenses for Startup Businesses

The video tells what are capital expenses and their examples.

Excel File Link:

Capital Expenses Concepts

The basic threads of a financial model for a start-up

To put together the thought of entire business idea is very complex, especially from the point of view of seeing its viability. There are independent threads in a business. They largely decide the values in the dependent area. Such independent threads capital expenses, revenues, operating expenses, overheads, working capital, tax, dividend…of course they are highly linked but can be worked on simultaneously.

Riddle of circular motion and gravity

I asked a question on reddit.com and I am pasting it here. Question of gravity

Assume a simpler universe – a planet orbiting in a perfectly circular orbit around its stationary star. We know that if they were travelling in straight parallel lines with constant velocities, they don’t need to spend any energy for that ever. But circular motion involves acceleration, force, angular acceleration, moment of inertia, force, torque, energy, etc. If one looks at the system from outside the system, apparently no energy is going outside the system even in the circular motion case. But when I enter the system and start looking how much mechanical work is happening, where the energy is needed, which object among two is supplying how much energy, energy is getting transferred from where to where, how the energy is conserved, I get nonplussed. Will these objects remain rotating like this eternally if no disturbance is there? What about the entropy stuff, it keeps on rising as more and more work is done, right? So when will it play role in deciding how the system is looking if at all? Once this is done, there is a jumbo confusion in my mind. Suppose I use gravity to do a mechanical work, say, to fell a stone from space on a planet. After the fall, everything is same (mass, etc) as the old system. Then, what was spent to do that work? Like limited fuel means limited energy. But can a fixed mass of planet (and a fixed gravitational energy associated with it) be used to infinite work? Fell infinite number of stone? Is anything spent at all? Isn’t this going against the principle of conservation of energy?

The question was not conveyed well to the people who wanted to answer. Hence I explained it further.

That being said, I’m not sure what your question is.

Friend, yes that is true. But it is not your problem. I agree there is an issue with my language, the way I have presented the question and the flow of what is written.

No work is required to keep the two bodies orbiting each other in space.

Yes. I know this. But I know this as a fact. I don’t know how this is so or why this is so. That is the question. We are not talking of how satellites reach tidal locking, etc. That is digression. We are talking of a theoritical experiment in an ideal and perfect world. So let’s not bring in worldly imperfections.
That is why I started with linear motion. Had this star and the planet gone in straight lines, parallel/etc to each other and had they no mass/gravity, no question of force/energy arises as Newton’s first law makes that amply clear.
But in case of perfectly circular motion, it is little dificult for a confused person like me to understand how forces are working and how energy is conserved. So we are not talking about the observation and beyond, but before it.
Also what I am asking is not anything new or complex or serious or sort. It must be very rudimentary, simple and fundamental. The question is to put it in a right way so that it is logically understood.

Here goes the problem statement:
Now let me tell how I think and where I get nonplussed. Take an initial position where there is a stationary star and a STATIONARY planet at some distance from it. None is rotating around itself or around any other. There is no mass/gravity in them to even to have any linear motion. Following things happen instantaneously; 1. There is mass in them 2. (assume that) gravity propagates instantaneously 3. A tangential (to orbit) force corresponding to that perfect circular orbit ( I don’t think any force would do.) on the planet acts (I think from somewhere outside) and it sets in circular motion.
Here are observations:
What all happens then? 1. So far as I understand, the star is still stationary and doesn’t rotate around its axis, etc after this. 2. The gravitational force is cancelled by the centrifugal force of the circular motion of the planet hence there is no linear motion (I am confused about why the centrifugal force stuff arises out of nothing. Even in a simple example where I rotate a key with its chain in my fingers, upon stabilization and when I stop providing my energy, the kinetic energy of keys provides tangential force and there is nothing to provide centrifugal force, rather the rigid finger provides inward pull, but still the keys don’t suddenly fall down. They go on for a couple of rounds more. I know that moment of inertia is conserved, etc. But note that it is just different terminology for a specific type of motion and there are no separate laws used. So this is an attempt to understand angular acceleration, moment of inertia as they are based on laws of linear motion and their derivation can’t be very easily visualized. If irrelevant, this whole centrifugal stuff might be called digression and can be parked aside. Let it be your call.) 3. Some net external unbalanced force keeps on changing the direction of motion of the planet. So some net force is acting on it. So mechanical work is being done.
The confusion:
1. The star is still as it is without ANY change in it. It needn’t rotate, etc. So who/what is doing this mechanical work? BASICALLY HOW CAN THE STAR DO SUCH WONDER WITHOUT GETTING AFFECTED AT ALL? 2. I initially kicked the planet into circular motion by giving it energy from outside, but that is in the form of 1/2Iw2 or the kinetic energy of the planet. 2. Even if it is said that THIS energy was used to do the work said above, it won’t suffice for any longer period. 3. If work is being done continuously on the planet, thermodyamics comes into play. If work is being done, isn’t there continuous shifting of energy from one point to another? Newton spoke of linear motion. But if this is continuous circular motion, forces are acting, energy is flowing!!! From where to where?? What is the end result? Why the temperature of on the object on which forces are acting won’t rise? Why won’t the entropy rise? Isn’t the nature of gravity misterious in the sense that it keeps on doing work eternally?

The question asked in the planet and stone case is entirely different. It might have very less to do with this question. I thought, they can be answered in a single shot.

Now here is the second part. Assume a stationary planet and a stone at some distance in space in a simple, idealistic and perfect case. The stone would fall on the surface on the planet. Consider the WORK DONE FROM THE MOMENT THE STONE IS THERE AND TILL IT FALLS ON THE PLANET. Suppose, I one after another I keep on putting a stone there, all of them will fall. This work will be done by the gravity of the planet (and the stone). Now you can’t say that the work done or the energy supplied is only of the stone. The force is F= gMm^2/r^2 and energy is E=F*distance. I can’t say either only the planet is giving the energy or only the stone is giving the energy. There must be sharing of this contribution (may be in propotional of mass, but keep it aside for now). Now if keep on supplying a new stone at that point one after another near infinitely (using my own near infinite outside resource), always a fraction of planet’s energy is used. But shouldn’t the planet’s gravitational energy be limited??? How can it pull as many stones? Let’s not get confused with effect of mass of newly accumulated stones. Let’s make a case where the stones are radioactive and vanish into anything other than mass after they fall.

The existence of gravitation force depends upon two independent masses, and existence of two masses is a necessary condition for it to exist. Even if it starts to exists, it acts on the two masses involved. Thus how do we break up the contributions?

Let’s later see the confusions regarding electric, magnetic, weak and strong nuclear.


Sakharam Binder – A Critical Review

Sakharam Binder is a Marathi drama. If this is a unpirated link, you can watch it here.

This is the link for Hindi version:

If possible, please watch the drama end to end. It’s English version also might be available. If possible, read a  couple of reviews. Here is one Review.

There are is a reason why I am writing this review of my own. When I search “Marathi Drama” on the Youtube, this drama which is watched maximum number of times turns out to be the first result. And it shouldn’t have. Yes, that is why I am reviewing it.

Some authors try to bring out the dark shades of human mind to fore and that is their forte. There is nothing wrong in that. But the number of people who are interested in the pervert side of mind, at least openly or more than in the other shades, should be less. There are plenty of Marathi Dramas and great ones too. Katyar Kaljaat Ghusali, the second ranker, is such a classic piece of work. Then why is this drama so famous, so acclaimed? The opponents (not critiques) will say that it is all about successful advertising. Some would say, it is all about creating a controversy and then reaping money out of it. But I am taking whatever the makers of this drama want to say on face value. I don’t want to allege something they won’t accept. I am not among those who fought to ban this drama to protect Indian culture or the caste of men or marriage system or the concept of God or anything like that. My simple contention is that this drama should be liked by a very few people – who are consumers of exploring the dark side of human mind, etc. It unnerves me that MORE people have liked it. And my opposition is only to that effect.

Why would have people watched it? Is it because the drama is very bold? But none of the thoughts in the drama are novel. No human perversion shown in the drama is new!!! This kind of perversion is all pervasive in many art forms as a subject matter. Generally in an art form, there is at least one hero. Here, in this drama, everybody without exception is pervert. May be, that could be the novel angle. But still, it didn’t impress me. The drama reveals perversions of each character one by one. It tends give an impression that the first woman on the screen/stage is religious, pious, virtuous, poor, ethical, hardworking, victimized in prior life as well as from her entry on the stage, etc. But she turns out to be the most pervert, to the shock of audience as well as that of Sakharam binder who is shown father of arrogant, oppressive, suppressive, torturous, lecherous, inhuman god (in the sense the drama shows that he is the only person who can earn on the planet Earth where people have have only two options – tolerate this god Sakharam or die.)

Note that I am not doing art side criticism of this drama. I am completely incompetent for that. I have no issues in agreeing that this drama is a great piece of art so far acting, lights, music, etc is concerned. However, a drama is not all about art. It is about an objective of the makers of it. Looking at the original release time, it doesn’t appear that objective was entirely money making. There was a much bigger objective in earnest. Let me guess what it could be. It could be to give this “artistic shock” in the end to the audience – just like the masseur twists a particular muscle which pains but is considered to be a great massage. I have no issues with this either. The other objective could be to give a message to the society. And this is where I feel there is a deficiency in the drama. The drama should precede or end with a disclaimer that this drama is not representative of any society. Because the drama doesn’t objectively state exactly what message it wants to send. So what is the message that reaches the audience?

The message that reaches an individual is what he wants to draw. And  what inference one draws first of all? The inference is, well, that the drama is depiction of social truth.  Tauba. Tauba. This drama has following people in it – Sakharam, a pious keep, a bold keep, a muslim friend, the bold keep’s (previous) husband. All of them are 100% pervert on overall basis. It doesn’t stop there. None of them thinks that there is anything wrong with himself or herself. None has any remorse of any kind throughout the drama.  Everyone has many criminal tendencies. There is no limit to which the criminal tendency can reach for each of them.

The question is – is the real society like this? Of course not!!! There is dark side to every MIND but when it comes to actual living, civilization ( or naturality) plays its forces.  The makers or watchers of this drama have failed to understand that the dark of of the MIND is not equal the dark side of the REALITY. People behave much better than what worst they can think about. Can a representation of the society of the worsts send a useful message? Giving complete benefit of doubt to the makers, let me explore what are the takeaways for me in this drama. Does the drama talk anything of human nature, attitude of men or women, man-woman relationship or anything like that at universal level? Does the drama talk of any Indian value? I don’t think so.

If the makers imply that they have depicted anything belonging to the real society, they have fooled themselves. Yes, Vijay Tendulkar has befooled himself if he thinks this is the Indian society. But the default audience of this drama is likely to return home thinking that the drama is all about reality of the society. Various comments on the Youtube link as well as discussions in the social forums have revealed to me that audience takes this as real social life which Vijay Tendulkar has intelligently found out and presented. For most, this is not a artistic presentation or the twitch by the masseuse but an excursion in the safari of Mr. Tendulkar in the dark alleys of internally pervert but visibly decent society. Mr. tendulkar is basically lauded for that. And that is a big cheating with the society and media. People may see a Sakharam in every Indian chauvinistic male, people may see a pervert pious keep in every religious woman, people may see a unfaithful and liar keep in every bold Indian wife, people may see a betrayer in every friend like that Muslim character.

Excessive dose of artistic perversion to masses is not desirable. It has two effects:

  1. When you are exposed to excessive badness as an observer, you rate your own goodness on a higher plane than it deserves. You may just forget that you have things to improve about. You may forget that there is scope to improve your moral character. Every coming day we complain of falling human values. That is because if an ordinary person is told that his values are far superior than the wicked society, the only side he would look forward to is downwards. That has happened to the current society by the grace of the great intelligent artists.
  2. When you are exposed to excessive badness, you tend to be suspicious about the character of the others. Because according to you excessive badness means hidden wickedness and false exhibition of goodness by the others to you. So you start doubting. You think that a there could be a lot of bad hidden agenda of a person. So your love for him doesn’t show up voluntarily but it takes pauses. Suppose you watch a movie in which wife cheats on the husband and keeps relations with his very close friend. For a fleeting moment you think in a particular direction about YOUR OWN LIFE (as the context applies, depending upon age, maturity, closeness, etc).

I become sad when people start calling this reality. There were so many people who stood for the Indian culture, who stood for Indian males, who stood for Indian value system, who stood for Indian marriage system and opposed this drama but no one stood for a default decent member of Indian society. I didn’t read even one vehement comment that the drama was classic but the real world is very beautiful.

I think the makers should dissociate this piece of art from social reality through a disclaimer. If the drama was less popular (or even most popular but only as an art), it was not an issue. But it is a hallmark of Marathi and Hindi drama industry and the viewers are made to digest a falsity as a reality of the society under the pretence of tour of unknown corners real life with intelligent guides.

Take it from me, there is more probability of parallel evolution of life on the Moon in a decade than of five perverts of Tendulkar coming together on the planet Earth.

Employment equation

  • An employment can be as dry as:

Value of my work = My salary and benefits

  • It can be a little bit better if:

Value of my work + My goodwill for my company = My salary and benefits + My company’s care for my personal life

  • However there is element of imbalance if:

Value of my work + My goodwill for my company = My salary and benefits + My company’s care for my personal life + A sense of having done favor to me by employing me


Value of my work + My goodwill for my company + A sense of grattitude for the favor of the employer by employing me = My salary and benefits + My company’s care for my personal life

The employees falling in the second option might be one of the largest category who feel work stress. Let me call them stressployees.

  • Also there is another kind of imbalance if:

Value of my work = My salary and benefits + My company’s care for my personal life


Value of my work + complete ingrattitude for the goodwill of the employer = My salary and benefits + My company’s care for my personal life

These employees are more than lucky.


I think the imbalace of stressployees is the worst social phenomenon. For them, I advise, social status should not be more important than status of the mind. Also a thinking that their spouse or kids would leave them if they don’t maintain employment or financial social status is completely unwarranted. The price of keeping the social status artificially elevated, beyond one’s capacity, beyond luck, is much more harmful.

An interrogation of an atheist: (Part 1 – Relative Status)

belief and atheism
Belief and non-belief

Believer: Hi.

Atheist: Hello.

Believer: Let’s straightaway come to the topic. Do you have lesser regard for a believer in general?

Atheist: I did not quite appreciate this question or its relevance. There is no question of having unequal regard for any two individuals.

Believer: Lesser regard in the sense that an atheist stands out from the crowd. He looks elegant and intelligent. An atheist is generally not an unintelligent atheist. He becomes an atheist after some basic minimum analysis of his observations. One has to become atheist or remain atheist with continuous analytical rigour. On the other side, belief is a default state in the current world. There is hardly any intellectual effort required to be a believer. Is this the perception of the atheists?

Atheist: I am not really sure about this. It would be difficult to classify people who have chosen to be believers after an initial neutral stage and a good amount of analysis thereafter as totally inconsiderate.

Believer: As for the matters not related to faith, an atheist would have the same degree of love, respect and trust for every individual. When it comes to matters related to faith, an atheist would still have love and trust for a believer but it is difficult to reason out that he will have equal degree of respect. If two individuals analyze exactly same matter and come to two different conclusions, each of them is likely to have lesser regard for the intellectual capacity of the other. Isn’t it?

Atheist: Apparently it seems logical.  But even concerning matters related only to the faith, respect is not a direct function of analytical ability alone. Maturity and application of whatever deductions made also matter. Many other aspects around the analysis, faith or absence of it matter too.

Believer: But shall that mean that an atheist would have less regard for the ‘intellect’ of a believer in the matters related to faith, if not the other aspects of the philosophical deductions?

Atheist: I don’t think an atheist having better understanding of atheism than mine by virtue of his better intellect, is going to have lesser regard for my intellect. The regard or disregard has less to do with the intellegnce quotient. It has more to do with the approach towards the analysis or application of the faith. Still, when it comes to respect of only the intelligence in the matters of faith, some believers would just refuse to acknowledge certain factual aspects of atheist thought and this is where the aspect of regard or disregard ‘for intelligence’ comes into picture. Such believers just refuse to cross certain boundaries of thinking process and disrespect of their thinking emanates in the atheist’s mind.

Believer: The spiritual, religious or related orientation of a being doesn’t play a limited role in one’s life. It has an all encompassing effect on the entire philosophy of life, on thinking and behaviors in social and personal existence. Hence, liking a believer for an atheist would be as good as liking the leader of opposition for the ruling Prime Minister. We won’t mind much being friends if you like a Rolex watch and I like a Casio watch as such liking is hardly a determinant of a friendship. But faith is a significant matter. It affects nearly all the decisions. Do you think that an atheist and a believer would face compatibility issues in the practical walk of life? For a moment, let’s ignore the namesake followers in both the categories and consider only the genuine adherents.

Atheist: The spiritual or philosophical orientation is a really significant issue in the life. Every individual spends a lot of time in one’s life in the quest of a correct kind of orientation. One also spends a lot of energy in the justification of the spiritual or material theory one has espoused. Coming to your question, one can notice substantial number of clashes between these two classes both at personal and social levels. The degree of intolerance is on rise in both these streams especially in the social space. Even if we ignore all the namesake atheists and namesake believers, the behavoral and philosophical disrespect is on rise in the remaining on global scale.

Believer: What are the main reasons for this attributable to the atheists?

Atheist: Overly enthusiasm and extremism have been problems with all  the philosophies. Atheism is not an exception to that. As of the date, there is no individual global pioneer of atheism. There is no well laid down framework of conduct for its followers (and even the issue of the preparation of such framework might be a subject of a big debate). Hence there is a kind of chaos. In every aspect of life and in every decision making of the atheists there is new, free, independent and different interpretation of atheism. I hope that this chaos is short-term. Not only that it is fact based, atheism as a way of life has a potential to provide an unparalleled happiness to humanity compared to its predecessor- religion. Let me call it ‘welfare atheism’. However, the movement of atheism is rudderless and is not going to be without friction. The reasons for clashes between existing dominant philosophies and atheism are primarily- 1. Oblivion of principle of tolerance and jumping into the bandwagon of chaos of philosophies, 2. Shift of focus from welfare atheism to discovery of scientific truths on (absence of) God and relentless marketing of the discoveries in a provocative fashion, 3. Proneness to manipulation by the unscrupulous intelligent for unethical and selfish purposes, 4. Philosophical inconsistencies, incompletenesses and undesirabilities as alleged by the opponents. But note that except for point number four, the other issues are not in the form of intrinsic lacunae of atheism.

Believer: That was more accurate than a critique would have pointed out. Well, these were just warm up questions. In the light of general perception of believers in the eyes of atheists, I was not really sure of what kind of treatment would be meted out to me. What will the spirit of our discussion?

Atheist: Atheism stands for acceptance of the truth and rejection of the falsity. It really does not matter what the truth is – whether my old belief or my new understanding. I am really not as much keen in disproving a legacy of a placeholder entity (called God)  as much I am in proving the utility of atheist thought for the humanity. You have come here with same concern but on opposite side of  the table. Rest assured that your relative status is at par with mine and you will get all the respect that an equal gets in terms of seriousness given to your questions. We aren’t here to lose or win, but to explore what is what, what is more appropriate, what can be avoided and so on. We are here to merely discuss and go on discussing as we very well appreciate that the superiority of a philosophy is always a topic of controversy as the individual egos get attached to clashing philosophies leaving aside the true spirit of the noble proponents of the philosophies. A discourse need not always be mutual mollycoddling of like minded people or manifestation of bitter antagonism of the opponents. An interrogation of atheism would bring forth the queries in the mind of a skeptic. If I am able to put to rest his doubts, it would help in comfortable survival and propagation of atheist thought. And I won’t mind conceding ground candidly where I can’t hold it.

Believer: That is the most appropriate way of discussion. That is really exiciting and gladdening. Thank you.

Atheist: Thank you.