[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: "Zodiac" signs and Regulus
--- Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I can see why the crowned figure in Leo is thought
> be Regulus; but then, why would the crowned figure
> Cancer not be Sirius? Sirius is the brightest star
> the heavens. This gives us a crowned figure ruled
> the Sun (Regulus) and one ruled by the Moon
It could be, but I am not sure why Regulus would
be related to the Sun and Sirius to the Moon, and
why they should then have crowns.
My idea is that the nr of points of the stars in the
zodiac section relates to stellar magnitude, as
has been listed by Ptolemy. 9-pointed stars
would be magnitude-1, 8-pointed stars magnitude
Now keeping in mind that we have only 10/12 of
the stars, the numbers seem to indicate that all
magnitude-1 stars are represented twice. There
could be various reasons why that could be the
case, but it is still only guesswork. I guessed that
the crowns could be reference to Regulus 'little
This is consistent with the fact that both crowned
nymphs hold a 9-pointed star, i.e. they are both
magnitude-1. However, this could be spoilt by
the fact that this name was coined by Copernicus.
If that is true, then we're back to square one :-)
Or, the VMs postdates Copernicus, and I'd have to call
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: