Me AND My Randomy

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

BHANGARH-THE HAUNTED PLACE

"I am a student and I love to know about everything, i don't want to bound with a specific field. So i used to roaming over the internet to find some stuff to increse my knowledge.I damn sure there are various pepoles in the outside world who thinks like me,sooooo i created that blog to share the things that i like.......i hope u guys will appericiate it!!!!!!!! "
-admin

How many of us believe in ghosts? Do they actually exist? Can they be felt? Believers will reply in affirmative and non-believers will perish the thought. But everybody would like to take a trip to THE den of the ghosts and such was the trip to Bhangarh, considered India's "most haunted" place.
.in the state of Rajasthan.Bhangarh is at the edge of the Sariska Tiger Reserve.

Bhangarh is a place between Jaipur and Delhi known for its ruins. Bhangarh is also a pre-historic site. The most remarkable of its buildings are the Hindu temples of Gopinatha, Shiva (Someshwar), Hanumana, Ganesha, Vishal Devta, Lavina Devi and Keshava Rai. Other buildings include shops along the main road, several havelis, a mosque, and a palace. The palace was protected by two inner fortifications across the valley. The town is separated from the plain by ramparts with five gates.

WANT TO EARN MONEY BY SHARING FILES CLICK HERE

The town was established in 1573 (VS 1631) during the rule of Bhagwant Das as the residence of his second son Madho Singh ( not Sawai Madho Singh, who ruled at Jaipur.), the younger brother of Emperor Akbar’s general, Man Singh I. Madho Singh participated in many campaigns with his father and brother. The next ruler of Bhangarh was his son Chhatra Singh after whose death in 1630, Bhangarh slowly declined. When the Mughal Empire became weaker after the death of Aurangzeb, Jai Singh II attached Bhangarh to his state by force in 1720. After this Bhangarh diminished in population, and since the famine of 1783 (VS 1840) the town has remained uninhabited.

Entry to Bhangarh is legally prohibited between sunset and sunrise. A signboard posted by ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), which is a Government of India organization, specifies the instructions. While the board is written in Hindi, the instructions on it roughly translate into: "Entering the borders of Bhangarh before sunrise and after sunset is strictly prohibited. Legal action would be taken against anybody who does not follow these instructions". Some other rules are there according to which no one is allowed to graze their animals after sunset.

.
Although it is a 300-km drive away from Delhi, yet a handful of people know about it. We started driving towards Bhangarh from Delhi early morning, expecting the journey to last not more than four hours. As not many people frequent the place, we did not have any first hand information and took guidance from a map and distance measurements available on the internet.
.

.
After crossing Gurgaon we proceeded towards Bhiwadi and turned to Alwar district in Rajasthan. Till this point we did not encounter any problem; it was a nice long drive and a little anxiety about what we would encounter at the fort.

From Alwar, as we crossed the Sariska reserve, the weather conditions changed. The sky became completely dark and in the afternoon it seemed like 7 o' clock in the evening. Dark clouds started descending over the Aravalli range and both melted into each other.
.

.
The weather condition was becoming hostile the more we approached the fort. To add to our plight, we bumped our way over at least two kilometres where there was no asphalt on the surface.
.

.
After crossing Ajabgarh, we entered into Bhangarh territory. It started raining profusely. It rained so much that visibility was down to 500 metres. Luckily we were carrying umbrellas and so without wasting a minute's time, we jumped out of the car and entered the fort. The lush green grass in the fort and its adjoining area surprised us. It did not at all seem like a place in the desert state of Rajasthan. There were many local tourists who came in groups, mostly youngsters. The dilapidated fort and the ruins welcomed us.

As we entered we found a Hanuman temple right next to the main gate. The sprawling premises has more than half a dozen temples: Hanuman Temple, Gopinath Temple, Someswar Temple, Keshav Rai Temple, Mangla Devi Temple, Ganesh Temple and Naveen Temple and a very strategically positioned Purohitji ki Haveli. It left us wondering how ghosts stay in a premises where there are so many temples!
.

.
A young tourist, Babulal, who was in a group of 10, said: "We all have come to see bhoot bangla (the fort of the ghosts)! We have heard about this place a lot and hence thought of coming once."
.

.
As we entered, we saw a Dancers' Haveli and Jauhari Bazar. All dilapidated now, but locals say paranormal activities are observed in these places at night. Further down the sprawling expanse of the fort was the Gopinath Temple, crossing which we reached the Royal Palace. It is located at the farthest end of the fort area.
.

.
The architecture of the buildings and the fort speaks volumes of the talent and acumen of the people during the rule of Bhagwant Das who established the town in 1573.
.

.
There are many myths about the place. It is believed that the entire township was obliterated in a day. But no written evidence has been found till date.
.

.
Against the backdrop of the Royal Palace stands the Aravalli Range. Bisram Nath, who works in the Someswar Temple said at times wild animals come down from the mountain ranges at night. "A few families like ours stay within the premise. We stay near the Ganesh Temple. The biggest problem is that the area does not have electricity."
.

.
The Archeological Survey of India has put up a board on the fort gate that it is prohibited for tourists to stay inside the fort area after sunset and before sunrise. Locals say whoever has tried to stay inside after sunset was never found.
.

.
Standing on the terrace of the Royal Palace one can view the vast expanse of the fort. It has four gates - Lahori Gate, Ajmeri Gate, Phulbari Gate and Delhi Gate. It seems life has come to a standstill in this area.

Like all other tourists, we also left the place before sunset with many questions remaining still unanswered in our minds.

.

.
How many of us believe in ghosts? Do they actually exist? Can they be felt?
.

.
1. Route: Delhi-Gurgaon-Bhiwadi-Alwar-Sariska-Thanagazhi-Pratapgarh-Ajabgarh-Bhangarh. It's a nearly 300-km drive. Best to travel in a SUV and always carry a spare tyre as there are stretches where for kilometres there are no petrol pumps or habitations.

.

.
2. Always carry some dry food as good dhabas and eateries are rare

3. Carry a torch with you as the fort does not have electricity and even in day time, a torch will help you to see parts of the fort better.
.
source--internet

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

#BRAIN MAN VS WOMEN

Human Brain Analysis

-admin

Man vs Woman

1-MULTITASKING

Women- multiple process

women's brain designed to concentrate multiple task at a time.

women can watch a TV over phone and cook.

Men- single process

Men's brain designed to concentrate only one work at a time.

Men can not watch TV and talk over the phone at the same time, they stop TV while talking.They either watch TV or talk over the phone or cook

2-LANGUAGE

women can easily learn many languages.But not fine solutions to problems.

Men can not learn many languages easily,but they can solve problem easily.That's by in average a 3 year old girl has three times higher vocabulary than a 3 year old boy.

3-ANALYTICAL SKILLS

Men's brains has a lot of space foe handling the analytical process.They can analyse and find the solution for a process and design a a map of a building easily.

Women can not understand the details of a map easily,for them it's just a dump of lines on a paper.

4-CAR DRIVING

While driving a car, man's analytical spaces are used in his brain.He can drive a car fast as possible.If he sees an object at long distance,immediately his brain classifies the object direction and speed of the object and he drives accordingly.

Where woman take a long time to recognise the object direction/speed. Man's single process mind stops the audio in the car,then concentrate on driving.

5-LYING

When men lie to women face to face ,they get caught easily.

Woman's super natural brain observes official facial expression 70%, body language 20% and words coming mouth 10%.

Men's brain does not have this.Women easily lie to men face to face.So guys,do not lie face to face.

6-PROBLEMS SOLVING

If a man have lot of problems,his brain clearly classifies the problems and puts them in individual rooms in the brain and then finds the solutions one by one.You can see many guys looking at the sky many time.

If a woman has a lot of problems,her brain can not classifies the problem, she wants some one to hear that.
after telling everything to a person she goes happily to bed.She does nor worry about problem solve or not.

7-WHAT THEY WANT

Men want success, status , solutions ,big process,etc...

But women want relationship,friends,family, etc...

8-UNHAPPINESS

If a women are unhappy with their relationship,they can not concentrate on their work.If a men are unhappy they can not concentrate on the relations.

9-SPEECH

Women use indirect language in speech.But men use direct language.

10-HANDLING EMOTION

Woman talk a lot without thinking .Men act a lot without thinking .Men act a lot without thinking.

WHAT SCIENTIST SAY....?

Significant differences exist between the male and female brains. Although what follows has been meticulously gathered from the research and writings of leading scientists and psychologists, it is by no means a hard and fast rule or description of every man and every woman. Every person is different and unique.

However, the facts clearly bear out that for nearly all men and women there are significant differences between the male and female brain. This means that in most cases, men and women do not behave, feel, think, or respond in the same ways, either on the inside or on the outside.

The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks. The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.
Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions. Women naturally see everyday things from a broader, "big-picture" vantage point.
Men can narrowly focus their brains on specific tasks or activities for long periods of time without tiring. Women are better equipped to divide their attention among multiple activities or tasks.
Men are able to separate information, stimulus, emotions, relationships, etc. into separate compartments in their brains, while women tend to link everything together.
Men see individual issues with parts of their brain, while women look at the holistic or multiple issues with their whole brain (both hemispheres).
Men have as much as 20 times more testosterone in their systems than do women. This makes men typically more aggressive, dominant and more narrowly focused on the physical aspects of sex.
In men, the dominant perceptual sense is vision, which is typically not the case with women. All of a woman's senses are, in some respects, more finely tuned than those of a man.
Pornographers incorporate male/female differences into the design and marketing of their wares. Just because something might not appeal to a man doesn't mean that a woman won't be attracted to it and vice versa.

Perhaps the greatest impact of the male/female brain differences is how men and women view sexuality and intimacy. It is important to understand the differences in these views in order to comprehend the vulnerabilities men and women have to Internet pornography and cybersex chatrooms. Internet pornographers are cognizant of these differences and market differently to each set of potential customers.

Again, the insights that follow are not absolutes but represent what most therapists, psychologists, and scientists consider to be the majority of men and women. The facts are not listed in any particular order and are not intended to be a complete study. Rather, they are intended to help you understand the unique male and female views of sexual intimacy as a result of the differences in their respective brain structures.

Special Note: The descriptions that follow are the findings of professionals who have dedicated their lives to the study of male and female sexuality. You will note that some of the male descriptions are not very flattering; many paint a downright cold, animalistic picture. Unfortunately, the descriptions represent a large cross section of the male population in our society. And with Internet porn and cybersex in the forefront, these common attitudes are growing.

Let me clearly state that I do not believe that men (or women) are locked into these negative stereotypes. We each have the inner capacity, strength, and innate goodness to rise above animal/sexual instinct if we choose to. We are not dogs; we are not forced into the reactive-impulse mode from which the Internet pornographers profit. I believe that we are so much better than that. I believe that the potential of human intimacy is light-years ahead of what is portrayed on the sterile screen of Internet porn.

Women See Relationships, Men See Body Parts
Anne Moir and David Jessel, in their book Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, write:

Women are not, in the main, turned on by pictures of nudes . . . Women may be aroused by pictures of couples coupling-because what they are seeing, in however sterile a sexual context, is a relationship in action. Women are not excited by a picture of male genitalia by itself . . . Men like female genital close-ups in porn magazines because it is a thing to which they can imagine doing things. Sex for men is vastly impersonal-pornography is simply meat for men. Do they ever wonder who the nude is? Not for a moment. They wonder what they would do to her.

Men want sex, and women want relationships. Men want flesh and women want love. Just as boys wanted balloons, toys, and carburetors, the girls have always wanted contact, and communion, and company.

The female mind is organized to place priority on relationship, the male on achievement. Men keep a tally of their sexual conquests. The female brain is not organized to keep sex in a separate compartment. This is a male model-as if his brain has a specific filing cabinet for sex, completely unrelated to emotion.

(This ability to compartmentalize is why a man can put his involvement with pornography in one compartment-or cellular-memory group-in his brain, and his relationship with his wife in another. He may consider the two to be completely unrelated. Many men can't understand why their wife makes such a big emotional fuss when she finds out he has been viewing pornography.)

In her book The First Sex, Helen Fisher writes:

In a 1920s study of several hundred American men and women, 65 percent of the men said that they had done some peering through a bedroom window. Only 20 percent of the women had done any stealthy ogling. Men are more turned on by visual stimuli. They use pornographic materials of every kind more frequently than women do. When they fantasize, they conjure up more images of coitus and body parts, the explicit details of sex itself.

Women, too, are excited by visual erotica, although women are not as turned on by it as men are. Women are much more aroused than men by romantic words, images, and themes in films and stories. Women's sexual fantasies include more affection and commitment. Women often dwell on their own emotional reactions. And they are more than twice as likely to think about a sex partner's emotional characteristics. . . . Flowers, oils, candlelight, satin sheets, fluffy towels: when women fantasize about sex, they conjure up the textures, sounds, and smells, all of the ambience surrounding sex, more regularly than men. Women also like more kissing, hugging, stroking, and cuddling during sex. In short, women place the act of intercourse within a wider physical context.

Fisher continues:

"Men think having orgasm is having sex. That's the difference," remarked one woman in a recent survey. There is a kernel of truth in what she says. Female sexuality is nested in a broader lattice of emotions, a wider range of physical sensations, and a more extensive social and environmental context-all reflections of feminine web thinking. Men's sex drive is far more focused on the act of copulation itself-yet another example of men's propensity to compartmentalize the world around them and focus their attention on specific elements.

NOTE- i found this on internet i am not responsible for that ,if any issues cause.

please comment for feedback and suggestion and support us by sharing this thank you.

HANGING GARDENS OF BABYLON

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, is the only one whose location has not been definitively established.

The Hanging Gardens were a distinctive feature of ancient Babylon. They were a great source of pride to the people. Possibly built by King Nebuchadnezzar II in 600 BC, the gardens are believed to have been a remarkable feat of engineering: an ascending series of tiered gardens containing all manner of trees, shrubs, and vines. The gardens were said to have looked like a large green mountain constructed of mud bricks.

Traditionally they were said to have been built in the ancient city of Babylon, near present-day Hillah, Babil province, in Iraq. The Babylonian priest Berossus, writing in about 290 BC and quoted later by Josephus, attributed the gardens to the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, who ruled between 605 and 562 BC. There are no extant Babylonian texts which mention the gardens, and no definitive archaeological evidence has been found in Babylon.

According to one legend, Nebuchadnezzar II built the Hanging Gardens for his Median wife, Queen Amytis, because she missed the green hills and valleys of her homeland. He also built a grand palace that came to be known as 'The Marvel of the Mankind'.

Because of the lack of evidence it has been suggested that the Hanging Gardens are purely mythical, and the descriptions found in ancient Greek and Roman writers including Strabo, Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus represent a romantic ideal of an eastern garden.If it did indeed exist, it was destroyed sometime after the first century AD.

Alternatively, the original garden may have been a well-documented one that the Assyrian king Sennacherib (704–681 BC) built in his capital city of Nineveh on the River Tigris, near the modern city of Mosul.

Scholarship and controversy

This copy of a bas relief from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal (669–631 BC) at Nineveh shows a luxurious garden watered by an aqueduct.
There is some controversy as to whether the Hanging Gardens were an actual construction or a poetic creation, owing to the lack of documentation in contemporaneous Babylonian sources. There is also no mention of Nebuchadnezzar's wife Amyitis (or any other wives), although a political marriage to a Median or Persian would not have been unusual. Herodotus, writing about Babylon closest in time to Nebuchadnezzar II, does not mention the Hanging Gardens in his Histories.

To date, no archaeological evidence has been found at Babylon for the Hanging Gardens.It is possible that evidence exists beneath the Euphrates, which cannot be excavated safely at present. The river flowed east of its current position during the time of Nebuchadnezzar II, and little is known about the western portion of Babylon.Rollinger has suggested that Berossus attributed the Gardens to Nebuchadnezzar for political reasons, and that he had adopted the legend from elsewhere.

A recent theory proposes that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were actually constructed by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (reigned 704 – 681 BC) for his palace at Nineveh. Stephanie Dalley posits that during the intervening centuries the two sites became confused, and the extensive gardens at Sennacherib's palace were attributed to Nebuchadnezzar II's Babylon.Recently discovered evidence includes excavation of a vast system of aqueducts inscribed to Sennacherib, which Dalley proposes were part of a 50-mile (80 km) series of canals, dams, aqueducts, used to carry water to Nineveh with water-raising screws used to raise it to the upper levels of the gardens.

Dalley bases her arguments on recent developments in the decipherment of contemporary Akkadian inscriptions. Her main points are:
The name "Babylon", meaning "Gate of the Gods" was applied to several Mesopotamian cities.Sennacherib renamed the city gates of Nineveh after gods,which suggests that he wished his city to be considered "a Babylon".
Only Josephus names Nebuchadnezzar as the king who built the gardens, but although Nebuchadnezzar left many inscriptions none mentions any garden or engineering works.Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus specify a "Syrian" king.
By contrast Sennacherib left written descriptions and there is archaeological evidence of his water engineering.His grandson Assurbanipal pictured the mature garden on a sculptured wall panel in his palace.
Sennacherib called his new palace and garden "a wonder for all peoples". He describes the making and operation of screws to raise water in his garden.
The descriptions of the classical authors fit closely to these contemporary records. Before the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC Alexander the Great camped for four days near the aqueduct at Jerwan.The historians who travelled with him would have had ample time to investigate the enormous works around them, recording them in Greek. These first-hand accounts do not survive into our times, but were quoted by later Greek writers.

The Hanging Garden at Nineveh ("another Babylon")

King Sennacherib's Hanging Garden was considered a World Wonder not just for its beauty – a year-round oasis of lush green in a dusty summer landscape – but also for the marvellous feats of water engineering that maintained the garden.

There was a tradition of Assyrian royal garden building. King Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BC) describes what he had done:

"I dug out a canal from the (river) Upper Zab, cutting through a mountain peak, and called it the Abundance Canal. I watered the meadows of the Tigris and planted orchards with all kinds of fruit trees in the vicinity. I planted seeds and plants that I had found in the countries through which I had marched and in the highlands which I had crossed: pines of different kinds, cypresses and junipers of different kinds, almonds, dates, ebony, rosewood, olive, oak, tamarisk, walnut, terebinth and ash, fir, pomegranate, pear, quince, fig, grapevine.... The canal water gushes from above into the garden; fragrance pervades the walkways, streams of water as numerous as the stars of heaven flow in the pleasure garden.... Like a squirrel I pick fruit in the garden of delights..."

Sennacherib is the only Mesopotamian king who has left a record of his love for his wife – a key part of the romantic classical story:

"And for Tashmetu-sharrat the palace woman, my beloved wife, whose features the Mistress of the Gods has made perfect above all other women, I had a palace of loveliness, delight and joy built..."

Sennacherib's palace was comparable in size to Windsor Castle in England. He specifically mentions the massive limestone blocks that reinforce the flood defences. Parts of the palace were excavated by Austin Henry Layard in the mid-19th century. His citadel plan shows contours which would be consistent with Sennacherib's garden, but its position has not been confirmed. The area has been used as a military base in recent times, making it difficult to investigate further.

A sculptured wall panel of Assurbanipal shows the garden in its maturity. There is one original panel and the drawing of another in the British Museum, although neither is on public display. Several features mentioned by the classical authors are discernible on these contemporary images.

The irrigation of such a garden demanded an upgraded water supply to the city of Nineveh. The canals stretched over 50 km into the mountains. Sennacherib was proud of the technologies he had employed, and describes them in some detail on his inscriptions. For example:

At the headwater of Bavian (Khinnis) his inscription mentions automatic sluice gates but does not say how they worked:

"The sluice gate of that canal opens without a spade or a shovel and lets the waters of abundance flow.: its sluice gate is not opened by the labour of men's hands, but by the will of the gods."

An enormous aqueduct crossing the valley at Jerwan was constructed of over 2 million dressed stones. It used stone arches and waterproof cement. On it is written:

"Sennacherib king of the world king of Assyria. Over a great distance I had a watercourse directed to the environs of Nineveh, joining together the waters.... Over steep-sided valleys I spanned an aqueduct of white limestone blocks, I made those waters flow over it."

He claims to be the first to deploy a new casting technique in place of the "lost-wax" process for his monumental (30 tonne) bronze castings, and describes the making of his water screws (though once again he does not say exactly how they were driven):

"Whereas in former times the kings my forefathers had created bronze statues imitating real-life forms to put on display inside temples, but in their method of work they had exhausted all the craftsmen, for lack of skill and failure to understand the principles they needed so much oil, wax and tallow for the work that they caused a shortage in their own countries – I Sennacherib, leader of all princes, knowledgeable in all kinds of work, took much advice and deep thought over doing that kind of work.... I created clay moulds as if by divine intelligence for cylinders and screws... In order to draw up water all day long, I had ropes, bronze wires and bronze chains made. And instead of a shaduf I set up the cylinders and screws of copper over cisterns....I raised the height of the surroundings of the palace, to be a Wonder for all Peoples... A high garden imitating the Amanus mountains I laid out next to it, with all kinds of aromatic plants, orchard fruit trees, trees that enrich not only mountain country but also Chaldea (Babylonia), as well as trees that bear wool, planted within it"

Sennacherib could bring the water into his garden at a high level because it was sourced from further up the mountains. He then raised the water even higher by deploying his new water screws. This meant he could build a garden that towered into the sky with large trees on the top of the terraces – a stunning artistic effect that surpassed those of his predecessors and which justifies his own claim to have built a "Wonder for all Peoples".

The gardens were believed to have been built in Babylon because of its name. However, the Assyrian capital of Nineveh was known as New Babylon, and this may have been where the confusion arose. Ancient texts written by Assyrian leader Sennacherib made reference to a 'wonder' garden

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon: Originally believed to have been built around 600 BC near Hillah, in the Babylon Province of Iraq, Dr Dalley's research pinpoints its whereabouts 350 miles north in the the ancient city of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, also known as 'New Babylon.'

Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: Built c. 550 BC near Selçuk in the Izmir Province of Turkey, it was a Greek temple dedicated to the goddess Artemis.

Statue of Zeus at Olympia: The temple was said to have been built between 466 and 456 BC while the statue itself was believed to have been added in 435 BC. Ancient reports claim it was a giant seated figure, believed to be around 43 ft tall, built by the Greek sculptor Phidias.

Mausoleum at Halicarnassus: Built in 351 BC in modern-day Bodrum, Turkey, it was a tomb built for Mausolus, a governor from the Persian Empire.

Colossus of Rhodes: Built between 292 and 280 BC in Rhodes, Greece, it was a statue of the Greek Titan Helios.

Lighthouse of Alexandria: Built around 280 BC in Alexandria, Egypt it was tower said to be 450ft tall, making it one of the tallest man-made structures for many centuries.

source-internet