Why haven't the Star Constellations changed in thousands of years?

when you drive down the road at 70mph, the street signs go by fast but the mountain 10 miles away moves very slow.
Think of that on a universal sized scale.

Lol, so what constellations would that be? The same ones we have now? Because if were moving 483,000 miles per hour pretty sure after the fucking stars would have changed by now, thousands of years ago. Funny how only doom comes from fake ass space. Sheep porn

Here's "all the movement" of Polaris over about a half century of time. It's just barely detectable in old photographic sky surveys. The high resolution measurements of the proper motion of Polaris come from the 2007 reduction of the Hipparcos data:
[link to www.aanda.org]
The proper motion of Polaris can be independently verified using ground-based telescopes; since proper motion builds up over time, using high resolution images taken decades apart you can see its effect from one image to the next. For example, you can detect the proper motion of Polaris in images from the first and second Palomar Sky Survey that were taken using the same telescope almost 50 years apart. I used the following photographic film plates:

Plate XO001 (A2TX) photographed Aug 22, 1952 5:20 UT
Astrometrically solved image:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]

Plate XJ896 (A2NG) photographed Jan 17, 1998 5:12 UT
Astrometrically solved image:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]

The images 46 years apart should have a total motion of Polaris of about 2.1 arcseconds according to the hipparcos data (44.48 x 11.85 mas = combined vector of 46 milliarcseconds per year = 0.046 arcseconds per year * 46 years = 2.1 arcseconds).

For diffraction centroiding of Polaris, I measured the intersection of the diffraction spikes to find the position of Polaris in each image:
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]

Zooming in on the difference between the intersection points in the diffraction spikes, and drawing a line between those intersection points, you can see that Polaris has moved about 2 arcseconds between 1952 and 1998, just as expected according to the Hipparcos data. And just as expected, the direction of motion is positive in right ascension and negative in declination (resulting in a higher right ascension value and slightly lower declination value in the 1998 image):
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]

So yes, Polaris has proper motion and does move over time, but due to the vast distance between our solar system and Polaris it takes years for these motions to become noticeable even in telescopic images at arcsecond resolution. Even over tens of thousands of years that it takes precession to cycle through, it would only move a fraction of a degree.

Just to further prove the point, here is a catalog of stars measured by Tycho Brahe, published by Johannes Kepler, about 400 years ago. This excel sheet contains the ecliptic coordinates, names, and even correlated HIP designations for each star. The highlighted columns are the ecliptic longitude and latitude in the epoch at which these stars were originally measured, around the year 1600.
[link to dropcanvas.com]
Let's take Arcturus as an example, the brightest star in the constellation Boötes. It's on row 135 in the excel sheet, and accounting for 400 years of precession, those coordinates translate to equatorial coordinates of approximately the following:
RA: 214.04 degrees
Declination: 19.44 degrees

Now, what are the coordinates of Arcturus today? Well the J2000.0 coordinates are the following:
RA: 213.9153
Dec: 19.1824

Note, this difference is not from precession, I already accounted for that when converting from ecliptic to equatorial coordinates. This is the actual motion of the star over the last 400 years. Taking the published expected values for the proper motion of Arcturus ( [link to simbad.u-strasbg.fr] ) we can extrapolate the modern coordinates for Arcturus backwards in time to predict what the coordinates should have been 400 years ago back when Tycho and Kepler were doing their work. Here are the coordinates predicted by the proper motion of the star:
RA: 214.04
Dec: 19.40

Well, would you look at that, it's almost a perfect match to what Tycho actually measured, to within 4 hundredths of a degree!

It's NOT a motion of the entire constellation of Boötes either. Let's take a look at another major star of Boötes, the star Izar:
[link to simbad.u-strasbg.fr]

As you can see by its HIP number of 72105, Izar is listed on row 128 of my spreadsheet with ecliptic long and lat of 202.4916667 degrees and 40.66666667 degrees respectively. Once again, calculating for 400 years of precession and converting that to equatorial coordinates we get the following:
RA: 221.24687
Dec: 27.08932

This star has much lower proper motion than Arcturus, it's not moving as fast, so the difference between Tycho's coordinates and modern coordinates is much smaller.
Here are the J2000.0 coordinates of Izar:
RA: 221.24674
Dec: 27.07422

The fact that Arcturus has moved by about 0.29 degrees while Izar has barely moved at all means the constellation of Boötes HAS changed its shape in the last 400 years and you CAN see this difference by examining centuries old star catalogs and comparing to the modern positions of the stars. I just did that. I warned you yesterday not to push me or I'd whip out Tycho on you, but you didn't listen, you just had to resort to slandering me by calling me a pedo and other crap. So now you get to deal with the fact that I just destroyed your claim completely. Enjoy.

they have, but only by a little.

you fail to grasp the immensity of the distances involved.

they have, but only by a little.

you fail to grasp the immensity of the distances involved.

The "distances involved" can never be proven. One must accept there word of these distances because nobody can prove these distances. Sounds like a religion.

The "distances involved" can never be proven. One must accept there word of these distances because nobody can prove these distances. Sounds like a religion.

Ever heard of triangulation? Of course not.

they have, but only by a little.

you fail to grasp the immensity of the distances involved.

they have, but only by a little.

you fail to grasp the immensity of the distances involved.

Ever heard of triangulation? Of course not.

The "distances involved" can never be proven. One must accept there word of these distances because nobody can prove these distances. Sounds like a religion.