View allAll Photos Tagged enemy
Photo's from the concert Arch Enemy gave at the Alcatraz Metal Festival in Belgium 2014
© Robin Looy Fotografie
Concert, music, festival, band photographer. Popfotograaf
Instagram: @bandphotographer
Facebook: facebook.com/robinlooyphotography
The George Armstrong Custer Equestrian Monument, also known as Sighting the Enemy is an equestrian statue of George Armstrong Custer located in Monroe, Michigan. The statue was unveiled on June 4, 1910. It was designated a Michigan Historic Site on June 15, 1992 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on December 9, 1994.
While Custer was not born in Monroe, he lived much of his early childhood living with relatives and going to school in Monroe. During his youth, he met his future wife Elizabeth Bacon, whom he returned to marry in 1864. Custer eventually left Monroe to attend the United States Military Academy and fight in the Civil War. Because of his hard work and success during the war — as well as the Union's need for officers — he was promoted to the rank of Major General and was a very well known military figure. After the Civil War, he partook in the Indian Wars. His previous accomplishments in the Civil War, however, were overshadowed by his catastrophic defeat and death at the Battle of the Little Big Horn on June 25, 1876.
To honor him, a $24,000, 14-foot (4.27 m) bronze equestrian statue, sculpted by Edward Clark Potter, was unveiled in Monroe in 1910 by then-President William Howard Taft and Elizabeth Bacon Custer. The statue commemorates his successful actions during the Civil War and not his more well known failure during the Indian Wars.
The information above comes from Wikipedia:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armstrong_Custer_Equestrian_...
The Direct Assault Weaponized Navigator is Dawn Forge's latest land vehicle. This particular D.A.W.N. Unit is part of the 4th Ironclad Division. Though mainly using a variety of mech, Dawn Forge occasionally needs something quick while still being lethal. These massive trucks usually travel in a pair, and their long range missiles can strike miles away from enemy lines, while its high caliber cannon can be deadly at medium range. They are plated in a polymer alloy armor that deflects even the toughest of blows.
An imperial guard elite sniper unit lead by Lieutenant Ben Highburrow in the middle of a firefight with Eldar agressors on the desert world Torq XLII.
These photos are my first attempts to work with Photoshop (Photoshop Elements 11). Up to now i have only edited size and lighting on my photos with Photoscape, a free internet software download.
Older Warhammer 40k miniatures from Games Workshop.
28mm scale (roughly 1:56)
I paint the miniatures and build most of the terrain.
Sometimes the greatest ally can also be the worst enemy. We have to be conscious about our actions and impact we have as go about capturing earth's beauty.
We are symbiotic to mother earth, how we go about discovering her splendour, is often a balance of our subconscious and conscious relationships.
Note: constructive critiques accepted, i'd love to know my mistakes and ways to make better images in the future.
==================
Yokohama, Japan
October, 2009
Airborne's Steel Brigade squad just made contact with Cobra forces. This time the shot spotlights my new Snake Eyes custom, who suited up to make the jump with the rest of the team.
Released on 5th Dec. 2015. Still going strong.
Watched yesterday at Maquinez Auditorium / Hall ESG, Panaji.
Film Director Mr. Dinesh P. Bhonsle and Music Director Mr. Schubert Cotta both made a brief presentation before the show.
The film is good with good cinematogprahy, Good Music and songs etc.
Goan tradition like weddings, Resper, Kazar, dance, Ros, verse, chuddo, Ladin, celebrations etc.
Scenes from Agassaim, Santana Church, Pilar, Panaji Church, DB Road Panaji etc.
more here www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEovGdrIC0
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Char B1 was a French heavy tank manufactured before World War II. It was conceived as a specialized offensive vehicle, armed with a 75 mm howitzer in the hull. Later a 47 mm gun in a turret was added, to allow it to function also as a Char de Bataille, a ‘battle tank’ fighting enemy armour, equipping the armoured divisions of the Infantry Arm. Starting in the early twenties, its development and production were repeatedly delayed, resulting in a vehicle that was both technologically complex and expensive, and already obsolescent when real mass-production of a derived version, the Char B1 "bis", started in the late thirties.
The outer appearance of the Char B1 reflected the fact that development started in the twenties: like the very first tank, the British Mark I tank of World War I, it still had large tracks going around the entire hull and large armour plates protecting the suspension—and like all tanks of that decade it had no welded or cast hull armour. The similarity resulted partly from the fact that the Char B1 was a specialized offensive weapon, a break-through tank optimized for punching a hole into strong defensive entrenchments, so it was designed with good trench-crossing capabilities and therefore the hull and the tracks had considerable length. The French Army thought that dislodging the enemy from a key front sector would decide a campaign, and it prided itself on being the only army in the world having a sufficient number of adequately protected heavy tanks. The exploitation phase of a battle was seen as secondary and best carried out by controlled and methodical movement to ensure superiority in numbers, so that the heavy tank’s mobility was of secondary concern. Although the Char B1 had a reasonably good speed for the time of its conception, no serious efforts were made to improve it when much faster tanks appeared.
More important than the tank's limitations in tactical mobility, however, were its limitations in strategic mobility. The low practical range implied the need to refuel very often, limiting its operational capabilities. This again implied that the armoured divisions of the Infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées, were not very effective as a mobile reserve and thus lacked strategic flexibility. They were not created to fulfill such a role in the first place, which was reflected in the small size of the artillery and infantry components of the divisions.
Another explanation of the similarity to the British Mark I lies in the Char B1's original specification to create a self-propelled gun able to destroy enemy infantry and artillery. The main weapon of the tank was its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible. When in the early 1930s it became obvious that the Char B1 also had to defeat counterattacking enemy armour, it was too late for a complete redesign. The solution was to add the standard cast APX-1 turret which also equipped the Char D2 and the Somua S35. Like most French tanks of the period the Char B thus had a small one-man turret. The commander not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the anti-tank gun, and if he was a unit leader, he had to command his other tanks as well. This was in contrast with the contemporary German, British and to a lesser extent Soviet policy to use two or three-man turret crews, in which these duties were divided amongst several men, or to use dedicated command vehicles.
Among the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day, the Char B1 was very effective in direct confrontations with early German armour during the Battle of France. The 60 mm (2.36 in) frontal armor was sloped, giving it an effective strength of near 80 mm (3.15 in), and it proved to be almost invulnerable to the 1940 Panzer II and III as well as the early Panzer IV with its short 75mm close-support gun. There were no real weak spots, and this invulnerability helped the B1 to close on targets, then destroy them with the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) or the brute force of the howitzer HE shells. However, its slow speed and high fuel consumption made it ill-adapted to the war of movement then being fought.
In the meantime, plans had taken shape to improve the Char B1, and this led to two developments that eventually entered the hardware stage: A further up-armoured version, the Char B1 "ter", was designed with sloped and welded 70 mm armour, weighing 36.6 tonnes and powered by a 350 hp (260 kW) engine. It was meant to replace the B1 bis to accelerate mass production, a change first intended for the summer of 1940 but later postponed to March 1941 and finally abandoned.
In the course of the redesign, space was provided for a fifth crew member, a "mechanic". Cost was reduced by omitting the complex Neader transmission for aiming the howitzer and giving the hull gun a traverse of five degrees to each side instead. The first prototype was shown in 1937, but only three prototypes could be partly finished before the defeat of France. Serial production was rejected due to the need to build totally new production lines for the much-modified Char B1 ter, so that this development was a dead end, even more so because it did not really cure the vehicle’s weakness of the overburdened commander and the split armament.
The latter issues were addressed with another development, a modernized variant of the existing Char B1 bis with a new weapon layout, the Char B1 “tetre”. Work on this variant started in 1936, as an alternative concept to the one-man turret and as an experimental carrier for a new high velocity semi-automatic 75 mm multi-purpose gun with a long barrel. Such a weapon was direly needed, because the biggest caliber of an anti-tank gun was a mere 47 mm, the SA 35 gun. The only recent alternative was the infantry’s 47 mm APX anti-tank gun from 1937, which could pierce 60 mm (2.4 in) at 550 meters (600 yd) or 80 mm (3.1 in) at 180 meters (200 yd), but it had not been adapted to vehicle use yet and was not regarded to be powerful enough to cope with tanks like the Char B1 itself.
This new 75 mm tank gun was already under development at the Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) for a new medium 20-ton-tank, the Char G1 from Renault, that was to replace the Char B1. The gun, called “ARL 37”, would be mounted in a new three-man turret, and ARL was developing prototypes of both a turret that could be taken by the Char B1’s and S35’s limited turret ring, as well as the gun itself, which was based on the 75 mm high velocity gun with hydro-pneumatic recoil compensation from the vintage heavy FCM 2C tank
The ARL 37 had a mass of 750 kg (1,653.5 lb) and a barrel length of 3,281 mm (129.2 in) with a bore of 43 calibers. Maximum muzzle velocity was 740 m/s (2,400 ft/s). The gun was fitted with an electric firing mechanism and the breech operated semi-automatically. Only one-piece ammunition was used, and both HE and AP rounds could be fired – even though the latter had to developed, too, because no such round was available in 1937/38 yet. However, with early experimental Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) rounds, the ARL 37 was able to penetrate 133 mm (5.2 in) of vertical steel plate at 100 m range, 107 mm (4.2 in) at 1.000 m and still 85 mm (3.3 in) at 2.000 m, making it a powerful anti-tank weapon of its era.
Since the new weapon was expected to fire both HE and AP rounds, the Char B1’s howitzer in the hull was omitted, its opening faired over and instead a movable 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun was added in a ball mount, operated by a radio operator who sat next to the driver. Another 7.5mm machine gun was mounted co-axially to the main gun in the turret, which had a cupola and offered space for the rest of the crew: a dedicated commander as well as a gunner and loader team.
The hexagonal turret was cast and had a welded roof as well as a gun mantlet. With its 70 mm frontal armor as well as the tank’s new hull front section, the conversions added a total of four net tons of weight, so that the Char B1 tetre weighed 36 tons. To prevent its performance from deteriorating further, it received the Char B1 ter’s uprated 350 hp (260 kW) engine. The running gear remained unchanged, even though the fully rotating turret made the complex and expensive Neader transmission superfluous, so that it was replaced by a standard heavy-duty piece.
Although promising, the Char B1 tetre’s development was slow, delayed by the lack of resources and many teething troubles with the new 75 mm cannon and the turret. When the war broke out in September 1939, production was cleared and began slowly, but focus remained on existing vehicles and weapons. By the time there were perhaps 180 operational B1 and B1 bis in all. They were used for the Sarre offensive, a short-lived burst without serious opposition, with a massive force of 41 divisions and 2.400 tanks. The Char B1 served with the armoured divisions of the infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées (DCr). The First and Second DCR had 69 Char B1s each, the Third 68. These were highly specialized offensive units, to break through fortified positions. The mobile phase of a battle was to be carried out by the Divisions Légères Mécaniques (mechanised light divisions) of the cavalry, equipped with the SOMUA S35.
After the German invasion several ad hoc units were formed: the 4e DCr with 52 Char B1s and five autonomous companies (347e, 348e, 349e, 352e and 353e Compagnie Autonome de Chars) with in total 56 tanks: 12 B1s and 44 B1 bis; 28e BCC was reconstituted with 34 tanks. By that time, a very limited number of Char B1 tetre had been produced and delivered to operational units, but their tactical value was low since sufficient 75 mm AP rounds were not available – the tanks had to use primarily the same HE rounds that were fired with the Char B1’s howitzer, and these posed only a limited threat to German tanks, esp. the upgraded Panzer III and IVs. The Char B1 tertre’s potential was never fully exploited, even though most of the tanks were used as command vehicles.
The regular French divisions destroyed quite a few German tanks but lacked enough organic infantry and artillery to function as an effective mobile reserve. After the defeat of France, captured Char B1 of all variants would be used by Germany, with some rebuilt as flamethrowers, Munitionspanzer, or mechanized artillery.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (driver, radio operator/machine gunner, commander, gunner, loader)
Weight: 36 tonnes (40 short tons, 35 long tons)
Length: 6.98 m (22 ft 10½ in) overall with gun forward
6.37 m (20 ft 11 in) hull only
Width: 2.46 m (8 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (1 ft 3¾ in)
Climbing: 93 cm (3 ft ½ in)
Trench crossing: 2,4 m (7 ft 10½ in)
Suspension: Bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs
Steering: Double differential
Fuel capacity: 400 liters
Armour:
14 to 70 mm (0.55 to 2.75 in)
Performance:
28 km/h (17 mph) on road
21 km/h (13 mph) off-road
Operational range: 200 km (124 mi) on road
Power/weight: 9.7 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Renault inline 6 cylinder 16.5 litre petrol engine with 350 hp (260 kW)
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 rear gear
Armament:
1x 75 ARL 37 high-velocity cannon with 94 rounds
2x 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine guns with a total of 5,250 rounds
The kit and its assembly:.
This fictional Char B1 variant was based on the question what the tank could have looked like if there had been a suitable 75 mm gun available that could replace both its howitzer in the hull and the rather light anti-tank gun in the turret? No such weapon existed in France, but I tried to extrapolate the concept based on the standard Char B1 hull.
Two big changes were made: the first concerned the hull howitzer, which was deleted, and its recessed opening faired over with 1 mm styrene sheet and putty. This sound easier as it turned out to be because the suspension for the front right idler wheel had to be retained, and the complex shape of the glacis plate and the opening called for patchwork. A fairing for the co-driver was added as well as a ball mount for the new hull machine gun. New shackles were added to the lower front and, finally, new rows of bolt heads (created with white glue).
The turret was completely replaced with a cast turret from a 1943 T-34/76 (Zvezda kit). While its shape and gun mantlet are quite characteristic, I still used it mostly OOB because its size and shape turned out to be a very good match to contemporary French tank turrets. However, the gun barrel was moved and a fairing for a hydro-pneumatic recoil damper was added, as well as a French commander cupola. And an adapter had to be scratched to attach the new turret to the hull, together with small fairings for the wider turret ring.
Painting and markings:
I wanted a rather unusual paint scheme for this Char B1 derivative, and found inspiration in an operational museum tank that depicts vehicle “311/Rhin”: it carries a three-tone livery in two greens and brown, instead of the more common sand, dark green and earth brown tones or just two-tone schemes.
The colors were adapted to an irregular pattern, and the paints I used were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227, a rather pale interpretation of the tone), 10 (Gloss Dark Brown) and ModelMaster 1764 (FS 34092). As a personal twist, the colors were edged in black, enhancing the contrast.
The markings were puzzled together from various sources in an attempt to create suitable tactical codes of the early 1940 era. The “Ace of Spades” emblem on the turret is, for example, are a marking of the 1st section. The dot in front of the “K” probably indicated a command vehicle, but I am not certain.
Some post-shading was done as well as dry-brushing with light earth brown to emphasize edges and details. Then the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and received some dusting with grey-brown artist pigments, simulating dust around the running gear.
Well, not too much was changed, but the new, bigger turret changes the Char B1’s look considerably – it looks somewhat smaller now? Its new silhouette also reminds me of a duck? Weird, but the conversion worked out well – esp. the modified glacis plate without the howitzer’s recessed opening looks very natural.
Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.
Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.
Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.
It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.
So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?
Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!
Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.
What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?
Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.
An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?
Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.
Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.
The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?
Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.
In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.
Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?
If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.
Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?
To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.
Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …
1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?
2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?
Which one would you choose?
Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.
To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!
We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.
Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?
Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.
The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:
1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.
That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
What about Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.
Do they have a good point?
Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.
So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.
The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.
The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.
Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?
The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.
The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.
Essential characteristics of the first cause.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.
So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
"The Tauri are a devious and malicious confederation of people dwelling on the great steppes and plains to the north-east of Morcia. Due to the Mountains of Ulric seperating their realms from the more civilised nations, these are a highly savage and barbaric people to whom war is a second nature. Every day is a struggle for survival on the great plains and only the most fit, strong, brutal and ruthless individuals survive.
The name of this people is a reference to the eponymous animal, the bull, whose crest decorates the shields of the Tauri warriors. Their precise relation with the animal is unknown, but several merchants passing through their realm, coming West, have brought with them dreaded tales of wicked creatures residing in caves throughout the steppe. These creatures are said to have the body of a man, combined with the head and legs of a bull. Most likely, the Tauri savages look up to the gory acts perpetrated by these daemonic creatures and therefore choose to emblazon their shield with an image of one, hoping they will be granted the same inhuman strength as the Minotauri in battle.
Battle is all these people know. The several tribes fight amongst themselves, trying to capture precious horses, cattle or conquer new lands for there warherds to graze upon. Next to themselves, Orcs are the most common enemy for them to fight. After being driven from the West, dozens of Orcish tribes sought refuge in the inhospitable places in the East.
Slavery is one of the most lucrative bussineses for a Tauri tribesman. Often, they raid each other, trying to capture slaves to sell in the West. Sometimes, the most daring chieftains even cross the mountains and spill into neighbouring lands, wreaking havoc and destruction."
- Laurentius Allectus, 'On Our Great Nation and Those Who Seek To Bring It Down'
City Palace, Udaipur, is a palace complex in Udaipur, in the Indian state Rajasthan. It was built over a period of nearly 400 years being contributed by several kings of the dynasty, starting by the Maharana Udai Singh as the capital of the Sisodia Rajput clan in 1559, after he moved from Chittor. It is located on the east bank of the Lake Pichola and has several palaces built within its complex. Udaipur was the historic capital of the former kingdom of Mewar in the Rajputana Agency and its last capital.
The City Palace in Udaipur was built in a flamboyant style and is considered the largest of its type in Rajasthan, a fusion of the Rajasthani and Mughal architectural styles, and was built on a hill top that gives a panoramic view of the city and its surrounding, including several historic monuments such as the Lake Palace in Lake Pichola, the Jag Mandir on another island in the lake, the Jagdish Temple close to the palace, the Monsoon Palace on top of an overlooking hillock nearby and the Neemach Mata temple. These structures are linked to the filming of the James Bond movie Octopussy, which features the Lake Palace and the Monsoon Palace. The subsequent publicity has resulted in the epithet of Udaipur as "Venice of the East". In 2009, Udaipur was rated the top city in the World's Best Awards by Travel + Leisure.
HISTORY
The city Palace was built concurrently with establishment of the Udaipur city by Maharana Udai Singh, in 1559 and his successor Maharanas over a period of the next 300 years. It is considered the largest royal complex in Rajasthan and is replete with history. Founding of the city and building of the palace complex can not be looked in isolation as the Maharanas lived and administered their kingdom from this palace.
Prior to moving their capital from Udaipur to Chittor≤≥, the Mewar kingdom had flourished initially in Nagda (30 kilometres to the north of Udaipur), established in 568 AD by Guhil, the first Mewar Maharana. In the 8th century, the capital was moved to Chittor, a hill top fort from where the Sisodias ruled for 80 years. Maharana Udai Singh II inherited the Mewar kingdom at Chittor in 1537 but by that time there were signs of losing control of the fort in wars with the Mughals. Udai Singh II, therefore, chose the site near Lake Pichola for his new kingdom because the location was well protected on all sides by forests, lakes and the Aravalli hills. He had chosen this site for his new capital, much before the sacking of Chittor by Emperor Akbar, on the advice of a hermit he had met during one of his hunting expeditions.
At his capital Udaipur, Maharana Udai Singh soon faced defeat at the hands of Mughal Emperor Akbar. He soon moved to Udaipur to the chosen location to establish his new capital. The earliest royal structure he built here was the Royal courtyard or 'Rai Angan', which was the beginning of the building of the City Palace complex, at the place where the hermit had advised Maharana to build his Capital.
After Udai Singh’s death in 1572, his son Maharana Pratap took the reins of power at Udaipur. He was successful in defeating Akbar at the battle of Haldighati in 1576 and thereafter Udaipur was peaceful for quite some years. With this, prosperity of Udaipur ensued, palaces were built on the shore and in the midst of the Pichola lake. Concurrently art, particularly miniature painting, also flourished.
But in 1736, the marauding Marathas attacked Udaipur and by the end of the century the Mewar state was in dire straits and in ruins. However, the British came to Mewar’s rescue in the 19th century and soon the State of Mewar got re-established and prospered under British protection, under a treaty signed with the British. However, the British were not allowed to replace them. Once India got independence in 1947, the Mewar Kingdom, along with other princely states of Rajasthan, merged with the Democratic India, in 1949. The Mewar Kings subsequently also lost their special royal privileges and titles. However, the successor Maharanas have enjoyed the trust of their people and also retained their ownership of the palaces in Udaipur. They are now running the palaces by creating a trust, called the Mewar Trust, with the income generated from tourism and the heritage hotels that they have established in some of their palaces. With the fund so generated they are running charitable hospitals, educational institutions and promoting the cause of environmental preservation.
LEGEND
Historical legend narrated to the selection of the site for the palace is about a hermit meeting Maharana Udai Singh when he was on a hunting trail in the Udaipur hills. The Maharana met the hermit who was meditating on top of a hill above the Pichola Lake and sought the hermit’s blessings. The hermit advised the Maharana to build his palace at that very spot and that is where the palace complex came to be established at Udaipur.
GEOGRAPHY
The city palace located in Udaipur city at 24.576°N 73.68°E, which is set with an average elevation of 598 metres.
CLIMATE
The climate of Udaipur reflects the climate at the city palace. It is tropical, with the mercury recording between a maximum of 38.3 °C and a minimum of 28.8 °C during summers. Winter is cold with the maximum temperature rising to 28 °C and the minimum dipping to 11.6 °C. The average annual rainfall is 64 cm.
STRUCTURES
The series of palaces packed in the city palace complex, facing east (as customarily appropriate for the Maharana dynasty – the Sun dynasty), behind an exquisite facade of 244 metres length and 30.4 metres height, were built on a ridge on the east of lake Pichola. They were built over a long period, from 1559 onwards, by 76 generations of Sisodia Rajputs or Suryavanshi Rajputs (worshippers of Sun god). Several Maharanas (the title Maharana is distinctly different from Maharajah, as the former connotes a warrior and the latter a ruler or a king) starting with Udai Mirza Singh II, have richly contributed to this edifice, which comprises an agglomeration of structures, including 11 small separate palaces. The unique aspect of this conglomeration is that the architectural design (a rich blend of Rajasthani, Mughal, Medieval, European and Chinese Architecture) is distinctly homogeneous and eye catching. The palace complex has been built entirely in granite and marble. The interiors of the palace complex with its balconies, towers and cupolas exhibit delicate mirror-work, marble-work, murals, wall paintings, silver-work, inlay-work and leftover of colored glass. The complex provides a fine view of the lake and the Udaipur city from its upper terraces.
Located with the picturesque backdrop of rugged mountains, beside the Pichola lake on its shore, the city palace complex painted in gleaming white color has been compared to the Greek islands, such as the Mykonos.
The famous structures or palaces viewed from the Lake Palace appear like a fort. They are interlinked inside the complex through a number of chowks or quadrangles with zigzag corridors (planned in this fashion to avoid surprise attacks by enemies). Erected in the complex, after entering through the main Tripolia (triple) gate, are the Suraj Gokhda (public address facade), the Mor-chowk (Peacock courtyard), the Dilkhush Mahal (heart’s delight), the Surya Chopar, the Sheesh Mahal (Palace of glass and mirrors), the Moti Mahal (Palace of Pearls), the Krishna Vilas (named after Lord Krishna), Shambu Niwas (royal residence now), the Bhim Vilas, the Amar Vilas (with a raised garden) that faces the Badi Mahal (the big palace), the Fateprakash Palace and the Shiv Niwas Palace (the latest addition to the complex); the last two have been converted into heritage hotels. Details of all these structures are elaborated. The vast collection of structures are termed to form ‘a city within a city’ set with facilities of post office, bank, travel agency, numerous craft shops and also an Indian boutique belonging to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for Nature. The entire complex is the property of the Mewar royal family and a number of trusts take care of the running and maintenance of the structures. The earliest royal structure built in the complex was the Royal courtyard or Rai Angan.
GATEWAYS
Gateways, colloquially called Pols, are set to the east of Udaipur city that was established by Maharana Udai Singh II, concurrently with the City Palace. A number of impressive gateways provide access to the palace complex.
The main entry from the city is through the 'Bara Pol' (Great Gate), which leads to the first courtyard. Bara Pol (built in 1600) leads to the ‘Tripolia Pol', a triple arched gate built in 1725, which provides the northern entry. The road between this gate and the palace is lined with shops and kiosks owned by craftsmen, book-binders, miniature painters, textile dealers and antique shops. Between these two gates, eight marble arches or Toranas are erected. It is said that the Maharanas used to be weighed here with gold and silver, which was then distributed among the local people. Following the Tripolia gate is an arena in front of the Toran Pol and the facade palace, where elephant fights were staged in the past to test their prowess before starting on war campaigns.
The main block of the city palace at Udaipur is approached through a modest door from the Ganesha Deodhi terrace. The door is flanked by whitewashed walls vibrantly painted with martial animals in the traditional Rajput style.
AMAR VILAS
Amar Vilas is the uppermost court inside the complex, which is a raised garden. It provides entry to the Badi Mahal. It is a pleasure pavilion built in Mughal style. It has cussed arcades enclosing a square marble tub. Amar Vilas' is the highest point of the City palace and has wonderful hanging gardens with fountains, towers and terraces.
BADI MAHAL
Badi Mahal (Great Palace) also known as Garden Palace and is the exotic central garden palace that is situated on a 27 metres high natural rock formation bis-a-bis the rest of the palace. The rooms on the ground floor appear to be at the level of the fourth floor in view of the height difference to its surrounding buildings. There is a swimming pool here, which was then used for Holi festival (festival of colors) celebration. In an adjoining hall, miniature paintings of 18th and 19th centuries are displayed. In addition, wall paintings of Jag Mandir (as it appeared in the 18th century), Vishnu of Jagdish temple, the very courtyard and an elephant fight scene are depicted.
The elephant fight depicted in a painting on the wall was a representation of the real elephant fights, which used to be organized by the Maharanas. It is mentioned that the elephants used to be fed hashish (opium) before arranging the fights. An interesting observation is that the word ‘assassin’ is a derivative of the word ‘hashish’. The last such fight was reported in 1995.
BHIM VILAS
Bhim Vilas has a gallery of a remarkable collection of miniature paintings that depict the real life stories of Radha-Krishna.
CHINI CHITRASHALA
Chini Chitrashala (Chinese art place) depicts Chinese and Dutch ornamental tiles.
CHOTI CHITRASHALI
Choti Chitrashali or 'Residence of Little Pictures', built in early 19th century, has pictures of peacocks.
DILKHUSHA MAHAL
Dilkhusha Mahal or ‘Palace of Joy’ was built in 1620.
DURBAR HALL
Durbar Hall was built in 1909 within the Fatepraksh Palace (now a heritage hotel) Official functions such as State banquets and meetings were held here. The gallery of the hall was used by the Royal ladies to observe the Durbar proceedings. This hall has luxuriant interior with some unusually large chandeliers. Weapons of the maharanas and also some of their unique portraits are also depicted here. The foundation stone for this hall was laid by Lord Minto, the Viceroy of India, in 1909, during the rule of Maharana Fateh Singh and was then called Minto Hall.
FATEPRAKASH PALCE
Fateprakash Palace, which is now run as a luxury hotel, has a crystal gallery that consists of crystal chairs, dressing tables, sofas, tables, chairs and beds, crockery, table fountains which were never used. There is also a unique jewel studded carpet here. Maharaja Sajjan Singh had ordered these rare items in 1877 from F& C Osler & Co of London but he died before they arrived here. It is said that the packages containing these crystals remained unopened for 110 years.
JAGDISH MANDIR
Jagdish Mandir, located 150 metres north of the city palace, was built in 1652 in Indo-Aryan architectural style. It is a large and aesthetically elegant temple where an idol of Lord Jagannath, a form of Lord Vishnu made in black stone is deified in the sanctum. The temple walls and the sikhara or tower are decorated with carvings of Vishnu, scenes from Lord Krishna’s life and figurines of nymphs or apsaras. A brass image of Garuda (half-bird, half-man image, which is Lord Vishnu’s vehicle), is placed in a separate shrine in front of the temple. Flanking the steps up the temple decoration of statues of elephants are seen. The street square, where the temple is located, is also known as Jagdish Chowk from where several roads radiate in different directions.
KRISHNA VILAS
Krishna Vilas is another chamber, which has rich collection of miniature paintings that portray royal processions, festivals and games of the Maharanas. However, there is tragic story linked to this wing of the City Palace. In the 19th century, a royal princess was unable to choose from two suitors seeking her hand in marriage, one from the royal family of Jaipur and another from Jodhpur, and hence in a state of dilemma, she poisoned herself to death.
LAXMI VILAS CHOWK
Laxmi Vilas Chowk is an art gallery with a distinctive collection of Mewar paintings.
MANAK MAHAL
The Manek mahal approached from the Manak Chowk is an enclosure for formal audience for the Udaipur rulers. It has a raised alcove inlaid completely in mirror glass. Sun-face emblems, in gleaming brass, religious insignia of the Sisodia dynasty are a recurring display at several locations in the City Palace; one of these prominent emblems is depicted on the façade of the Manak Chowk, which can also be seen from the outermost court below. The largest of such an emblem is also seen on the wall of the Surya Chopar, a reception centre at the lower level. Surya or Sun emblem of the Mewar dynasty depicts a Bhil, the Sun, Chittor Fort and a Rajput with an inscription in Sanskrit of a quotation from the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu holy scripture), which means “God Helps those who do their duty". It was customary for the Maharanas to offer obeisance to the Sun facing east, every morning before taking breakfast.
MOR CHOK
Mor Chok or Peacock square is integral to the inner courts of the palace. The elaborate design of this chamber consists of three peacocks (representing the three seasons of summer, winter and monsoon) modeled in high relief and faced with coloured glass mosaic, built into successive niches in the wall area or jharoka, These were built during Maharana Sajjan Singh’s reign, 200 years after the palace was established. The peacocks have been crafted with 5000 pieces of glass, which shine in green, gold and blue colours. The apartments in front of the Chowk are picturesquely depicted with scenes of Hindu god Lord Krishna’s legends. At the upper level, there is a projecting balcony, which is flanked by inserts of coloured glass. In an adjoining chamber, called the Kanch-ki-Burj, mosaic of mirrors adorn the walls. The Badi Charur Chowk within this chowk is a smaller court for private use. Its screen wall has painted and inlaid compositions depicting European men and Indian women. Proceeding further from the Mor-Chowk, in the Zenana Mahal or women’s quarters exquisitely designed alcoves, balconies, colored windows, tiled walls and floors are seen.
MUSEUM
n 1974, a part of the city palace and the 'Zenana Mahal' (Ladies Chamber) were converted into a museum. The museum is open for public. There is an interesting exhibit of a freaky monkey holding a lamp and also portraits of maharajas displaying a spectacular array of mustaches. ‘Lakshmi Chowk' is an elegant white pavilion in the same precinct.
RANG BHAWAN
Rang Bhawan is the palace that used to contain royal treasure. There are temples of Lord Krishna, Meera Bai and Shiva, located here.
SHEESH MAHAL
Sheess Mahal or Palace of Mirrors and glasses was built in 1716.
A shrine of Dhuni Mata is also located in the complex. This location is considered as the oldest part of the Palace, where a sage spent his entire life meditating.
THE PALACE IN FILM & TELEVISION
The palace was used as a hotel in the 1985 James Bond film Octopussy, where Bond (played by Roger Moore) stayed as he began his quest to apprehend the villainous Kamal Khan (Louis Jordan).
A 1991 documentary film directed for television by Werner Herzog is called Jag Mandir and consists of footage of an elaborate theatrical performance for the Maharana Arvind Singh Mewar at the City Palace staged by André Heller.
The palace was used for filming part of Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela (English: A Play of Bullets: Ram-Leela) 2013 directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.
WIKIPEDIA
Detail from the outer Coffin of Tashepenkhonsu.
Inside the lid is Nut depicted.
On the interior, a scene from the ninth hour of the Book of Gates: Neseret, "The fiery one", a giant snake with the Sons of Horus standing in her coils, spews her fiery breath at the enemies of Osiris.
And Tashepenkhonsu depicted with various gods and being purified by a priest.
25th-26th dynasty, from Thebes
E 3913
Louvre Museum
John Wood the elder was also the architect for the Royal Mineral Water Hospital also uploaded today, this now part of the Francis Hotel.
Thomas Schütte, 2011, Rockefeller Sculpture Garden, Museum Of Modern Art, Plaza District, Midtown, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA, sculpture
As there was a lot of fighting in the eastern Slovakia during the WW2, there are quite a few memorials there. This one is right next to the city Svidnik.
HDR from three shots, taken with Canon 450D with Sigma 10-20mm lens, from a tripod.
My portfolio - Daily photo blog - My Twitter - My facebook page - Google+
Moored alongside HMS Belfast underneath Tower Bridge is German Navy Frigate F208 Neidersachen.
Tower Bridge, London
25 May 2014
However far apart, our mornings are probably just the same. There's that sting in the eyes you feel as soon as you open them and that blatant pain that keeps on spreading from your lower back all the way up to your shoulders and head. And, finally, the realization that nothing will change, not even today - in the exact same order as the years before, you'll have some pastry and coffee for breakfast, a tense stomach until noon, and a fuzzy head throughout the day. Accepting Responsibility
Arch Enemy in concerto al Graspop Metal Meeting 2023 di Dessel foto di Andrea Ripamonti per www.rockon.it