by Norman Scherer
2004

from CycleOfTime Website

 

Introduction

One night in early November 1983, Robert Bauval was camping in the desert with some friends and family in Saudi Arabia.

 

Robert, an engineer and amateur Egyptologist had recently been pre-occupied with the reasons why the third and smallest of the three pyramids of Giza was apparently not aligned along the same meridian as the two larger pyramids.

 

For some reason that night he woke up at 3am and gazed at the stars of the Orion constellation. After awakening his friend who also shared his interest in astronomy and had a passion for sailing, they discussed how to navigate using the stars. His friend pointed out how to find the star Sirius from the alignment of the three belt stars of Orion which Robert had been looking at.

 

As an afterthought his friend uttered these words,

Actually, the three stars of Orion's Belt are not perfectly aligned. If you look carefully you will see that the smallest of them, the one at the top, is slightly offset to the east...1

and Robert Bauval's "Orion Correlation" was born.

 


A True Correlation?

While many people accept as fact that there is a correlation it has quietly been shown not to be true by John Legon.

 

In his methodical and precise article (also called The Orion Correlation), Mr. Legon leaves no doubt that there most certainly is NOT a correlation. He also makes a compelling case against one of the main assertions in Bauval's theory, namely the association of Osiris with the constellation of Orion.

You may also recall, that one of the foremost authorities on the so-called "air shafts" of the Great Pyramid, Rudolph Gantenbrink, flatly states that these shafts could not possibly be... light or "star shafts."
 

No! All the shafts bend, often several times. In addition, all the shafts begin, at their lower ends, with horizontal sections about 2 meters in length. So there is no way light from any source could ever have penetrated from the outside into either of the chambers. In several parts of the shafts, with the exception of the lower southern one, we even found extreme angle fluctuations. It is therefore ridiculous for anyone to claim that the shafts could ever have pointed precisely to certain stars.

 

Given the many angle fluctuations, the shafts could be construed to be pointing at some 100 different stars, especially if construction of the pyramid is gratuitously redated to match specific stellar constellations.

While it is true that the smallest of the three pyramids at Giza, known as Menkaura's, is offset of the south-west diagonal line linking the two larger pyramids together, it is also true that the south east corners of all three pyramids line up perfectly.

 

See green diagonal line in illustration below:

 

 

Rate of Precession

Yet the Orion Star Correlation theory limps on, seemingly with a life all its own. So why this article?

 

Initially, when I first read Bauval's books The Orion Mystery and The Message of the Sphinx, I was very excited to read that the Orion Correlation alluded to a pyramid construction date of circa 10,450BC. This was by associating the precessional positions of the Constellation Orion (more specifically the star Al Nitak) with the southern "air shaft" of the King's Chamber circa 2450BC and a corresponding "perfect match" of Orion with the Giza layout circa 10450BC2.

 

These precessional calculations were done using the computer star simulation program Skyglobe 3.53. I have used this program and while it may have been state of the art in the mid 90's, it is obviously outclassed by much better star simulation programs available today.

 

One thing it did do, however, was precess thousands of years into the past (and future too) which most programs today will not do. But this may be because the accuracy of precessing star positions this far into the past introduces more and more inaccuracies and error into the results shown on the screen. No matter what software you use though, all of them will show precession as occurring at a constant rate. As explained in Cycles of Precession article this may not be correct. This is because our Sun may be part of a binary star system.

 

In fact as summarized in the table 4 below it seems there is better evidence for this as the cause of precession than the conventional "wobble of the axis" theory that is virtually accepted as fact.
 

 

Binary vs. standard model comparisons
 

Proposed Binary Model
Current Model
Majority of star systems are binary
Minority of star systems
Curved path of Sun through space explains the Earthís changing orientation to inertial space
No significant curvature in Sunís path requires Earthís changing orientation to inertial space to be explained by unproven complex theories (Occamís Razor applies)
Sidereal and solar year delta are natural result of binary orbit
Sidereal and solar year delta explanation conflicts with sidereal and solar day explanations
Angular momentum balances with dual star
Peculiar distribution of angular momentum among planets still unexplained
Sheer edge of solar system expected, since mass is separated between companion stars
Observed sheer edge of solar system is unexpected and not easily explained
Precession accelerates past apoapsis
Lunisolar precession should be constant but in fact precession calculations are continually altered
Precession conforms to elliptical equation
Precession should be relatively constant but is not
Curved path of Sun explains apparent wobble without causing rotational time problems, or requiring equinoctial slippage
Rotational wobble creates time paradox that requires unexplained concurrent motions
Some long cycle comet paths should be channeled by dual mass
Comet paths should be random but are not

 

 

The Sirius Research Group is a website devoted to the idea that our Sun is part of a binary system (with Sirius) and they have the mathematical calculations to back it up.

 

On their website in a section where they publish letters received from interested parties is the following post:

The co-author of "The Orion Mystery", Mr. Adrian G. Gilbert, had made the following statement in a letter to me on March 23, 1997:

Thank you for your long fax and subsequent letter, both of which I have now studied. Whilst I find some of the explanation a little technical, I am now sure you are right: Precession is a mathematical con-trick, just like Ptolemy's epicycles. What we see and interpret as the earth's 'wobble' is really the effect produced by our sun going round the star Sirius.

 

This seems perfectly logical to me and I would have thought would come as a great relief to astronomers, who have been scratching their heads for decades trying to understand the forces responsible for precession.

I wonder if Mr. Gilbert understood the implications of what he said.

 

If he admits that our Sun is in a binary orbit with another star it most likely is an elliptical orbit. If that is true Kepler's Third Law would come into play and the relative velocities of both stars would vary throughout the cycle. What this implies is you cannot extrapolate the current rate of precession back through time to achieve positions of stars in our remote history.

 

As explained by Walter Cruttendan:

Visually, the new model is one of a rotating object (the Earth) in an almost circular orbit around a second object (the Sun), which in turn is an elliptical orbit around a third object (the binary center of mass of the Sun and a companion star). If the Earthís orbit and the Sunís orbit are given, then the equations of classical mechanics predict that the axis of rotation of the first rotating object (the Earth) will precess (relative to inertial space) at a rate dictated by the Sunís path around its binary center of mass.

 

To an observer on Earth the first objectís axis will appear to precess by 360 degrees in the same amount of time it takes the second object to undergo a complete orbit around the third object, independent of the masses and distances involved. In this model the Earthís axis does not really wobble, or change relative to the Sun, but it produces the same observable now attributed to lunisolar precession -- a precession of the equinox.

 

From this we conclude that acceleration (and eventual deceleration) of the rate of precession will depend on the eccentricity of the binary orbit. From Keplerís Third Law, we know that all orbits are elliptical and objects leaving apoapsis accelerate to periapsis and then decelerate leaving periapsis.

 

Consequently, we now have an explanation for why the precession rate is accelerating, and we also have a logical reason for why the rate cannot be extrapolated ad infinitum . Indeed, the most significant clue that precession represents a binary orbit is its universally recognized but until now, unexplained acceleration.5

If this theory is true then there is no way for the "Orion Correlation" to be tenable.

 

 


The Message of the Sphinx

In a follow-up book to The Orion Mystery, Robert Bauval collaborated with Graham Hancock to write The Message of the Sphinx. In this book they took the Orion star correlation theory a step further by, among other things, extrapolating the precessional rate back to the 10,500BC era and claiming that the Sphinx, (with the body of a lion), was actually trying to convey its date of carving by gazing at its astronomical equivalent in the sky, namely the constellation of Leo which would have been,

"rising on the cross-quarter sunrise between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. This sunrise occurs at 14 degrees south of east, the point on the sunrise targeted by the Khafre causeway." 6

Try as I might with my trusty little Skyglobe program (which I assume they were still using) I could never get Leo to rise at this time (which I assume was around Feb 4, 10500BC at 6:45am in Cairo).

 

I could only get the constellation Aries rising. In any case, they were still using the current rate of precession back through time which I think will be shown to be inaccurate. It is interesting to note, however, that if you use Yukteswar's model for precession (see diagram below) you would see that the vernal equinox precessed into 29į59' of Leo around 9500BC (when the autumnal equinox was entering 29į59' Aquarius)

 

This is approximately the time Plato (and Cayce) had for the final destruction of Atlantis.

 

9500BC also marked the end of the Piscean Age (as marked by the Autumnal Equinox) which rules all the oceans and supposedly the Atlantic Ocean became the final resting place of Atlantis and signified the end of an era. Perhaps this is the significance of the Sphinx-Leo connection. The entering of the vernal equinox into Leo in 9500BC marked the dawning of a new age which would not include the evils of the final inhabitants of Atlantis.

 

A new civilization was begun in Egypt. Maybe this is how they chose to commemorate this "new beginning".

 

 


References

  • 1 Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert, The Orion Mystery: unlocking the secrets of the Pyramids (New York: Crown Publishers, 1994), p. 115.

  • 2 Ibid. p. 192.

  • 3 Ibid.

  • 4 Walter Cruttenden and Vince Dayes , "Understanding Precession of the Equinox," New Frontiers in Science (on-line version), (2003).

  • 5 Ibid.

  • 6 Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, The Message of the Sphinx (New York: Crown Publishers, 1996), p. 260.