Are the stars of the constellation stationary?

[lightforyoou]

If the stars of the constellations are stationary, then is the Sun also stationary. How can the Sun be in motion, if the stars of the constellations are fixed ("fixed stars").

[Endy0816]

They change, though very slowly over the course of a human lifespan.

A good example of this is the pole star changing over time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

 

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Endy0816

[CrystalMagic]

4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Они меняются, хотя и очень медленно, в течение жизни человека.

Хорошим примером этого является изменение полярной звезды с течением времени.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

 

 

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

If the stars of the constellations are stationary, then is the Sun also stationary. How can the Sun be in motion, if the stars of the constellations are fixed ("fixed stars").

They are all in motion. All the stars in our galaxy, and any associated solar systems, obviously including our own, are revolving about the galactic centre. The same is true for the stars in other galaxies. And the galaxies are in motion relative to one another as well.

However, the distances are so vast that, over the lifetime of recorded history, the stars don't seem to humanity to have moved in the sky appreciably, relative to one another. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by exchemist

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, lightforyoou said:

If the stars of the constellations are stationary,

As other have pointed out the stars are in constant motion.  The stars in constellations are also not typically even gravitationally bound to each other.  Here is a view of Ursa Major (the big dipper) from a view different than earth.

5 hours ago, CrystalMagic said:

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

That is right there is no absolute motion, all motion is relative.

[Genady]

5 hours ago, CrystalMagic said:

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

I disagree. A free falling body is at rest = not moving in its own reference frame.

[Bufofrog]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree. A free falling body is at rest = not moving in its own reference frame.

The question the person asked seemed to be clearly referring to absolute motion and your short answer is bound to cause him confusion instead of helping him to understand. 

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The question the person asked seemed to be clearly referring to absolute motion and your short answer is bound to cause him confusion instead of helping him to understand. 

I am not sure about this. Let's see if they ask a clarifying question.

[Endy0816]

12 hours ago, CrystalMagic said:

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

Correct (with some caveats).

Something can be stationary with respect to you, but everything is moving with respect to something else somewhere.

 

[CrystalMagic]

23 hours ago, Genady said:

 

 

16 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

 

 

I'm sorry if I wrote the wrong thing? I just barely know English. English is not the language of my country. I have a little dyslexia. even in my language, I sometimes make mistakes. I wanted to say that there is nothing that can never change as I think.

Edited January 27, 2023 by CrystalMagic

[Genady]

39 minutes ago, CrystalMagic said:

English is not the language of my country.

My first language was Russian, too. I don't practice it many years now, but perhaps could help you if you have problems expressing your thoughts or interpreting some responses.

[studiot]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:27 AM, CrystalMagic said:

If I understand correctly, there is nothing immobile in the universe?

This is correct and known as Earnshaw's Theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem

This theorem originally applied to electric charges, but was later extended to bodies in other potential fields.