I'd really like to know the exact reason for this? Is it

>>8062870
I would guess because that's how much the distance is betwixt stars. Thousands of years of traveling that fast wouldn't produce a discernible difference.

>>8062877
This
And everything else is spining along with us aswell. The stars aren't static

>>8062870
The exact, absolutely scientific reason is
"SPACE IS FUCKING HUGE"
Like, beyond our comprehension huge. People just don't have the scope for that. They see space like it's portrayed in Sci-fi; imaginably large, but not constricting; big enough for epic battles. In reality, the stars are so far away that even at superluminal speed we would almost certainly never reach them within a year

>>8062870
say you look at the sky every 1st of january for 1000 years.
the earth will be almost at the same position relative to the sun, with a similar orientation.

So in fact, the only thing that happened is you translated the earth of about 10^12 km

The milky way has a radius of 10^18 km. It means that in a thousand years, the sun has moved an angle of 1/20000 degree around the center of the milky fucking way, which is unnoticeable.
Without even mentionning the fact that everything in the milky way moves along with us anyway.

Ask your friend to go outside and walk two steps to the right. Notice that something nearby seems to move a lot but something in the far distance (like mountains or the moon) doesn't seem to move at all, relative to himself.

Then inform him that the closest star to earth is 25 TRILLION miles away

>>8062877
>>8062884
>>8062885
Do any of you know of a document I can read up on specifically about this? Tried googling but all it comes up with is Zodiac crap.

>>8062877
The first two points about the Earth spinning on its axis and orbiting the sun aren't even relevant. They're circular motions. Earth's position relative to the sun wasn't any different 1000 years ago.

>>8062895
Look up "parallax in distant objects"

>>8062903
the only movements that are relevant to this is the Sol system's travel around the center of the galaxy and its up and down movements

File: 272B772D00000578-0-image-a-4_1427817090519.jpg (55KB, 634x317px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 634x317px

>>8062870
Everything is shifting, and it's really not that slow on an astronomical scale. We can't be that precise but we can somewhat predict the shape of constellations in the far future.

This image shows some constellations over hundreds of thousands of years, so really not that long.

>>8062895
This is a real oversimplification of the math:

Aldebaran is the brightest star in the constellation Taurus and 65 light years away. If the Earth is moving at 72,000 kilometers per hour or (45,000 miles per hour) then in 1000 years it has moved 630 billion kilometers. 65 light years is 615 trillion kilometers. Imagine a right triangle 630 billion km wide and 615 trillion km tall. The angle at the bottom corner is 0.0061 degrees. If the Star was directly above your head on 9AM May 9 1016 it's now 0.0061 degrees away from being directly overhead.

File: cucumber4.jpg (48KB, 310x424px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 310x424px

>>8062870
this should shed some light on the matter

>>8062895
Proper motion of stars:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion

It's estimated to be 100,000 years for the constellations to become unrecognizable.

>>8062929
Nice, at least we were born in prime Orion time. In our epoch of time he looks just like a badass hunter. Good symbol for humanity. GOAT constellation, hands down. Orion has probably inspired humans for ages.

>>8062937
It's also worth noting that most of the stars we see in the night sky are also moving around the galaxy at about ~45,000 mph as well. In a sense, it's like asking "I've been driving at 45 mph for two minutes, why is this truck still 50 feet in front of me?"

>>8062870
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+will+the+constellations+look+like+in+the+future%3F&l=1

>>8062938
That is not a fig (Ficus carica or other subspecies).

Please revise and resubmit.

constellations are projections

>>8062870
First up, that top image is wrong.
Secondly, the constellations ARE changing. Just slowly.

>>8062870
They have changed.