Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?

a main topic in my astronomy GCSE test is:

鈥?To understand that the stars in a constellation are not physically related to one another.

and

鈥?To distinguish between binary stars and optical double stars.



if anyone could help me with either of these i would really appreciate it

thank you! 10 POINTS TO BEST ANSWER!!Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?Didn't you pay attention in class? Not so funny, now, is it? Do your own homework.

.Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?
Both parts have to do with DISTANCE. Any two stars that appear close to each other in the sky may in fact be very far from each other because one might be much closer to Earth. Hold your finger in front of a distant tree. They seem to be side-by-side, but are obviously not close to each other.Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?A constellation is an area of the sky as seen from the planet Earth. It includes nearby stars, far away stars, and distant galaxies. Sometimes it includes the Sun, the Moon, planets, asteroids, and comets. The only thing all these objects have in common is that they are in the same general direction _as seen from Earth_.



The difference between binary stars and optical doubles hinges on perspective as well. Binary stars are true double stars: two stars in a single gravitational system, one revolving around the other. An optical double is just ab accident where two stars almost line up as seen from Earth. They can be thousands of light years apart; all that makes them a double is that they almost line up as seen from Earth.Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?
鈥?To understand that the stars in a constellation are not physically related to one another.

and



A constellation is just a picture made in the sky, by connecting stars with each other. The Stars are not related to each other, because they may be very far from each other. One could be hundreds of light years away, the other may be thousands of light years away.



鈥?To distinguish between binary stars and optical double stars.



Optical double stars may look like 2 stars in a binary pair, but they may be thousands of light years apart.Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?The stars in space exist in a three dimension field. This was not necessarily apparent to ancients gazing up at the sky, possibly while somewhat intoxicated (certainly, more than a few of my observing logs have listed a potent beverage or two under 'Equipment'). They just saw vague patterns which their imaginations elaborated into pictures. They had no concept of the depths of what they were seeing. Early geocentric models of the solar system had the earth at the centre, and at the outer edge of 'the heavens' was this spherical shell, upon which the stars were affixed. Reality turned out to be rather different, once techniques such as solar parallax revealed that the distances to stars occupying the same general areas of the sky differed dramatically. In the case of the constellation Andromeda, one of the 'stars' within it turned out to be a galaxy about 2.5 million light years away. Even the actual stars are nowhere within the same 'neighborhood'; the brightest star in said constellation, Alpheratz/Sirrah, is about 97 light years away; Upsilon Andromedae is about 44 ly; 51 Andromedae is about 177 ly. Conversely, the closest ten stars to our Sun range from 4.2 to 10.5 ly.



The only relation that stars in a constellation have to each other (except for multiple stars, and stars within clusters such as M44) is that they are located in the same general direction from our point of view... sort of like how where I'm from, Miami and Rio de Janeiro are in the same general direction across the surface of the Earth.Why are the stars in a constellation not related to one another?
Let us start in the eye by changing star-pair to light bulbs in rifle sights. You do not see a night sky any degree of depth, so I can stack filaments closer than glass would have to overlap. You'd require spectroscopic sight to tell brighter bulb wasn't actually the further and dimmer looking as stars, but only due expansion of universe telling distance by red-shift. Rifle is to force you into two-dimensional paper look of sky, not the practical trajectory of near horizontal barrel's bullet drop nor time for bullet to break distant bulb. Constellations gather all onto a plane, but distance makes veritably everything dissociated. My lights being brighter further away was example of appearance as a pair of stars in one's mind, but actually interacting stars stand no chance of eyes seeing but a point. Figure Hubble-ST has more images for seeing binaries than the rest, before and continued until... whenever; just a guess, right? What eyes in most of us draw in minds gets lots of stuff reversed, as must be lesson for point by this teacher... it is NOT "can't you see that" as getting you to "you can't see this stuff"--okay? There had to be a point, unless design is to catch those failing to read textbook for a thoroughgoing topic. Author or teacher created a "optical" technicality against double seen about stars. Rifle accuracy/sighting is down to 1/4 minute of angle that is about as tight as good shooters can hold; better magnified scope gets only part way towards star precision that would make a shooter watch shakes. Telescopes hit atmosphere, until HST, now we are told how more common binary stars are than WAS believed, not seen--was mental.