Regulus in Virgo?

1
I have seen various estimates of when the royal fixed star Regulus ingresses Virgo from Leo. Some software states its there already while other estimates suggests this happens in 2012. I was wondering how accurate we can plot this ingress. Do we have a date or even an exact time for when this happens?

I am delivering a talk on the subject of Regulus in Virgo so I would be very interested to know!

Thanks

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

2
That might change the meaning of star, ?great power, honor, wealth, benefits seldom last, violence, trouble and sickness?
In generally, the last degree of sign isn?t good for planet, eliminates benefits. So, now it?s better to have Sun at 1Virgo, conjuncts Regulus, rather than Sun at 30 Leo.

4
It depends on which theory of precession you adhere. The rate of precession slighly differs according to these theories, http://www.tenspheres.com/researches/precession.htm (see graph 1.1 for a more visual explanation). But if you don't bother for a minute or two then the differences don't really matter :).

By the way the ingress Alcyone (the brightest star of the Pleiades) in Gemini unfortunately hasn't been noticed. This took place somewhere in july 2000 when I was touring South-England by bicycle during 6 months. Wonderful time, I look forward to next Alcyone in Gemini ingress.

I couldn't say what to expect but only one thing I really hope for is that the fact of the Regulus ingress doesn't add to the 2012 bubble.

5
Regulus shouldn't be too hard to accurately locate since it is right on the ecliptic. What might be interesting to note in a talk is that Regulus is the last of the so-called four Royal Stars of Persia to enter a mutable sign. The other three, Antares, Aldebaran and Fomalhaut have already done so. Throughout all of Western Astrology's history, they've been in fixed signs (until relatively recently). Although these things tend to manifest very slowly, you might wish to take a look at that.

6
The idea of a star "entering a sign" is counter-intuitive. It's the other way around. Signs are shifting over the stars, that's why they are called "fixed".

We ought to be saying instead:

"the first degree of Virgo has conjoined with Regulus."

But the first degree of Virgo is probably not that important. We should probably observe the solstice and equinox points. Zero degrees Cardinal.

Zero degrees of Cancer conjoined with Sirius in about 1000 AD. To me Sirius is a more interesting star than Regulus. Why the fuss over Regulus?

7
I remember that Mark once said that the concept of the 'Four Royal stars' was based upon a (19th century) misconception and no historical fact but I don't remember the thread nor the arguments. Perhaps Mark can elucidate please. You had a link to an article Mark, if I remember well.

The view of signs shifting over stars is more correct. But in 'tropical language' we just speak similar to the people who say that the Sun rises and sets. It takes less words to say it :). However note that the stars have 'proper motion' too. Alcyone and Regulus are now in square aspect but won't be anymore in 100,000 years or so. Actually nothing is fixed 'out there' in space.

I did a calculation from my astronomy annual with the rate of precession formulae on Regulus' ingress and found 2012 and 88 days/ ca. 29 March. Position Regulus in 2000 was 149.829? in a Jean Meeus' book (equals 29?49'44.4'' Leo. so 0?10'15.6'' to go and some 0?0'50.29'' per year gives 12 years. I'm afraid Solar Fire program contains an error because Astrojin's data for the ingress are too far off. Perhaps you can provide more data (e.g for several century dates 1600, 1900 and also on Alcyone or other stars) for comparison.

Another detail of difference is the yearly 'abberation of light' (0?0'21'') back and forth and the parallax, however the latter is neglectible. The former too, if you don't mind for some arc seconds.

8
"The idea of a star "entering a sign" is counter-intuitive. It's the other way around. Signs are shifting over the stars, that's why they are called "fixed"."
Since many of the stars we use aren't on the ecliptic at all and can be seen as though they are in other degrees than those assigned from other vantage points, I'm not sure what it is that stars actually do or do not do in relation to the zodiac.

The idea of fixed stars "moving" is probably best viewed as something of a metaphor. The ASC and MC do not move either. The signs move over them; in other words they are fixed, yet astrologers "direct" the ASC and MC when using primary directions as though they move. Solar arc directions do the same thing with the angles. So while it may not be astronomically accurate to state a star "enters" a sign,' using that kind of terminology has precedent.

9
Sorry been a bit busy lately. I just wanted to thank astrojin for putting up the data for the chart. I was a little confused as Anne Wright stated this occurs in 2012 on her website.

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/st ... _order.htm

Eddy wrote:
I remember that Mark once said that the concept of the 'Four Royal stars' was based upon a (19th century) misconception and no historical fact but I don't remember the thread nor the arguments. Perhaps Mark can elucidate please. You had a link to an article Mark, if I remember well.
Thats right. Basically, every astrologer that has written on fixed stars mentions the 4 Royal stars of ancient Persia as Regulus, Antares, Aldebaran and Fomalhaut. If actual scholarship on the subject carries any weight these astrologers have all got it utterly wrong. Its actually, quite embarrasing how many big astrological names have fallen into this trap. However, I would rather open a separate thread on this issue as its an interesting story. I just cant decide whether it fits better on the general or traditional forum.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

10
Hi Mark,
Well, the values given by Solar Fire might also be wrong (maybe both Anne Wright and Solar Fire are wrong!). It all depends on how a person (or a computer) calculates the precession (both its speed as well as rate of speed!).

Eagerly awaits your post on the royal stars!

11
the values given by Solar Fire might also be wrong (maybe both Anne Wright and Solar Fire are wrong!). It all depends on how a person (or a computer) calculates the precession (both its speed as well as rate of speed!).
Well I imagine most astrology calculations are 'wrong' for fixed stars when it come down to exact days and months. It depends to how a) exact the formula is, i.e a) accounting for how many variables with smaller and smaller effects, and also b) how many decimal places the programmer or compiler used.

That doesn't make a lot of difference when you are looking at the movement of the moon, for example if it is 'wrong' to 1 minute you will barely notice, but it does for events which take longer.

So if the moon takes 2.5 days to pass through a sign and is right to a minute, the equivalent for precession is 2100 years - over 300,000 times slower. So equivalent accuracy is for precession is about 200 days. Build in the fact that the fixed stars are themselves shifting slightly and it isn't surprising that there will be disagreement between compilers on the exact date.

I wouldn't work to anything less than a year on this stuff unless I had an astrophysicist and a big computer in the room with me.
"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper" Eden Phillpotts

12
Amelia wrote:
I wouldn't work to anything less than a year on this stuff unless I had an astrophysicist and a big computer in the room with me.
Something like this?
Image
Image
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly