Talk:Orion correlation theory

ORION Both the Archaeoastronomy and Astrological Ages pages needed a page on the OCT to link to. I've set up this page from cut 'n' pastes from the Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock pages. It's a controversial topic so I've tried to keep to NPOV. I'm sure it can be improved. Alunsalt (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx dating?

The last paragraph of the Leo and the Sphinx section describes three geologists by name that propose a much older carving date than the more widely accepted King Khafra dates. However, in refuting these three, the text simply says that many unnamed geologists dispute these older dates -- who are they, and how respected, and how many? -- and that Egyptologists dispute these older dates. The mention of Egyptologists disputing the geologically derived dates would seem to hold little water, as it is both completely expected since the older dates conflict with their own assertions, and also because it is vaguely akin to a historical linguist disputing an archaeologist's finding about a particular ethnic group's settlement dates. Egyptology, for better or worse, is (or at least appears to be?) much more subjective than mathematically based geological stone weathering analyses. As such, it would be great if someone more knowledgeable than I would be kind enough to expand upon the who, what, how, and why the proposed older Spinx carving dates are disputed among geologists.

TIA, -- Erik Anderson 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as specific scientists (Geologists or Egyptologists) disputing the older dates for the sphinx the issue is that the scientific mainstream in both professions accept the King Khafra dates. This is also the case among archaeologists. There is a fringe opinion of earlier dating - derived from some dubious statements regarding water erosion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That being said, the following is a quote from the site on the sphinx, referencing water erosion theory and lists several authors who dispute the theory: "Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520-2492 BC), do not accept the Water Erosion Theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[15] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[22] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[23] Alex Bordeau,[24] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[25]"Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Pyramidology

I oppose this proposed merger. Pyramidology is a respectable branch of archaeological science and Bauval's pseudo-scientific speculations have no place in it. EraNavigator (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cancel the above. I have now renamed the Pyramidology article Pyramidology (pseudo-science) to distinguish it from Pyramidology (archaeological), which is the respectable, scientific study of the pyramids in their archaeological context. (it's something like the difference between astronomy and astrology. I now support the merger of this article with Pyramidology (pseudo-science) EraNavigator (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• oppose, there's sufficient material here to justify its own article, and the OCT is not fully a subset of pyramidological speculation anyways—it draws inspiration (if that's the right word) mainly from other pseudo-archaeological and pseudo-astronomical claims, not really directly related to any alleged special properties of the pyramids themselves. Incidentally, I disagree with the move of pyramidology to pyramidology (pseudo-science), for reasons explained at its talk page. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree largely with the points made above. Despite its contentious status, Orion Correlation Theory is still a theory and seems to merit an article in its own right. --Adasta 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Toe rather belt?

This article covers only the issue of whether the angles match, but that is hardly the only reason to think this theory implausible. According to this article, the hieroglyph traditionally interpreted as referring to Orion is better translated as "the Orion star" and probably referred to Rigel (Orion's "toe") in the pyramid era. This implies that a soul arrived from Sirius and departed to Rigel -- thus there is no reason to think that the three stars in Orion's belt had any special significance in Egyptian cosmology. OCT assumes that the three pyramid pharaohs identified with three different stars, but pharaohs were all identified the same way astrologically, i.e. there was no tradition of associating a star with an individual pharaoh.[1] The air shaft in the Great Pyramid that supposedly points at Orion's belt goes upward at an angle of exactly 45 degrees. This suggests that the shafts have a geometric logic, so whatever star they point at is just coincidence. Isn't it only logical to think that people who built pyramids might be obsessed with geometry? Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inverted to fit?

While I strongly suspect the correlation to be nothing more than coincidental, I am wondering at the comments about the map of the pyramids being 'inverted to fit' the picture of the sky. Flipping the map left-for-right would be cheating, without question; however, as I recall, the ancient Egyptians drew maps with south at the top, making such a reorientation completely reasonable. Could someone more knowledgable about this speculation comment? Wyvern (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bauval's edit

Most of it looks ok, although I removed some shouting (all caps), etc. But I've removed a bit chunk and am placing it here for others to comment on and replace where there is consensus - see WP:COI.

The matter was numerically explained by physicist Dr. Paul LaViolette as follows:

"Actually the pyramids do not exactly reproduce the arrangement of these stars. The ratio of the separation of the pyramids (Cheops-Chephren; Chephren-Menkaura) is 10 percent larger than the corresponding of the stellar counterpart in Orion (Zeta-epsilon; Epsilon-Delta). Also the angular deviation of the smallest pyramid from the line connecting the peak of the two largest pyramids is 32 percent larger than the deviation of Delta Orionis from the line connecting Zeta and Epsilon Orionis. The discrepancy cannot be resolved by the relative movement of the stars because all three stars have very low proper motion. Knowing that the Egyptians were quite adept in astronomy and masonry, the reason for this discrepancy needs to be resolved." Paul LaViolette, Earth Under Fire: Humanity's survival of the Ice Age. Starbust Publications 1997, p. 107

To this criticism Bauval pointed out that the ancient Egyptians did not have optical instruments and were using simple, rudimentary sighting devices to measure the position of stars. Indeed, to know that there is 10% variance in separation, and 32% variance in angular rotation one can only determine these variations with fine optical instruments in the first place. Nonetheless, Bauval felt that the issue had to be 'resolved', as Laviolette pointed out. According to Bauval:

"There are several ways one could go about measuring and 'mapping' Orion's belt. But let me say that the idea having the asterism reflected on a surface is not practically feasable, because first the AE did not have perfectly smooth glass mirrors, and copper or other metal reflectors would badly distort the asterism (if it could be seen at all!). I have myself tried a mirror just by curiosity, and the asterism apparent size is about 10-15 mm.... far too small to draw with 'zero error' as some have suggested. As for a flat water pool, this cannot work as the asterism is at 45 degrees (or 10 degrees if one considers the epoch 10,500 BC). I think the question must be asked in a different way: what was the objective of the AE in replicating Orion's belt on the ground? The answer is rooted in religious idea and rebirth rituals of the Old Kingdom. Thus it follows that the objective was not a scientific/technical one, but a religious one. Anyone can go out at night, look at Orion's belt, draw it on a piece of paper or on the ground. What will vary is the level of precision the replication is made, which depends on the instruments used (or lack of them), and the accuracy of the person (there are surveyors who are better than others). Assuming logically that the AE surveyor/astronomer used simple non-optical sighting instruments to measure apparent size and angle of rotation, then it follows that must assume that, at best, he will have a tolerance value expected in such non-optical meathods. We know that much later Cladius Ptolemy managed a 10 arc minutes accuracy. The 'discrepancies' noted are 10% in separation, and 32% in angle of rotation.

The ANGULAR DISTANCE of one star to the other, say Epsilon to Delta Orionis, is 1 deg. 23' 09". This is 83 arc min. Thus 10% is 8.3 arc min. which is more or less what we'd expect.

The ANGLE OF ROTATION is NOT the same as an angular distance, because the offset produced depends on the length of the lines forming the angle. This length is about 15 mm. And the angle of rotation is 7 deg. Thus the 32% discrepancy is 2.25 deg. IN ROTATION in a circle whose radius is 15 mm. This would translate to an ANGULAR DISTANCE of about 10 arc min, again within the accuracy level expected.

As one can see from the above, it all depends what percentage of what size or angle is considered. Also 32% sounds 'large', the question is: 32% of what? 1 kilometer? 1 meter? 1 centimeter?... or 1 millimeter? In the case of the later, expecially when applied to a non-optical instrument measurement, is pratically negligeable.

Then there is the setting out operation to go undertake on the ground over a scale of 1:60,000. I won't bother with that, since it now should be obvious that the Pyramid Builders did an excellent job of it. In other words they were excellent land surveyors. Nonetheless the carried into their land surveying an 'built in error' from the previous astronomical observation, as they were limited to 10 arc min. accuracy with non-optical tools.

The "32 percent" discrepancy is, quite simple, a red herring in this context." Ending of Bauval's edit. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

... in correspondence to various ... ?

The theory was first put forward by Robert Bauval in 1983 in correspondence to various (notably Sir I.E.S. Edwards, T.G.H. James), and first published in 1989 in Discussions in Egyptology, vol. 13.

I have taken the initiative and have inserted "authors". If this is somehow incorrect (and it does not make sense as it is now anyway) feel free to revert. MrZoolook (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it makes sense, but it isn't properly sourced and could be seen as an attempt by Bauval to gain credibility by saying he wrote to these experts. It was added by an IP claiming (I believe this) - we'd really need a third party source for it if it should be included at all. I've removed it. I'm uneasy about the bit of almost personal narrative about taking his family one night etc - that's from the Robert Bauval article (added when this article was created and some of it in the first edit of Bauval's article). That's unsourced also and I can't find a source. I think it should be removed from both articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

==

Dates

If The Sphinx is supposed to point at the sunrise in Leo on midsummer day, that occurs best at around 6000 BC, which makes it a more likely date of construction. This can be checked on any planetarium software. 10,000 BCE is way too early, Leo has precessed well out of view at that point.

You need to remove that date or make a note its disputed 80.5.101.158 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)