And you are still completely misrepresenting it.
All it is, is Earth's spatial position (spatial orientation of earth's axis) wrt the stars has changed so that earth's axis precessed in CCW direction!!!
Yes, the orientation has changed. It hasn't simply slowed down or shifted around the axis. The axis itself is pointing in a different direction.
Now, if it affects stationary sun
Again, in the current model of the universe, NOTHING IS STATIONARY!
to come to the Equator 20 min earlier
Again, it doesn't.
It isn't coming earlier. It isn't coming later.
It has a different declination.
then in the same manner it must affect stationary stars (at least those at the ecliptic) so that they come at the local meridian 20 min later.
Do you not notice the 2 vastly different things you are saying here?
Here let me make it easier:
to come to the Equator 20 min earlier
come at the local meridian 20 min later.
Notice how one appeals to the equator, focusing on the declination of the sun and how that is effected by the precession.
Notice how the other one focuses on the meridian instead, something completely different?
Once again, my example is a clear representation of this.
The precession of Earth's axis isn't going to make a star all the way over to the right appear to the left.
You repeatedly ignoring this and instead just asserting the same refuted nonsense will not help your case at all.
So, even if 3,2 seconds would be the wrong number, and if Alpha2Omega's number (0.01s per day on average) turned out to be the correct number, that would still be significant difference since 0,01 * 365 = 3,65 seconds, wouldn't it?
He didn't actually say 0.01 s. He said on the order of. But again, it depends on exactly what you focus on and how you calculate it and exactly how you are defining it.
As for if it is significant, remember that Astronomers don't typically just use a time, they use an angle.
After a year so you get your ~4 seconds, what angle does that correspond to?
It is roughly only 1 minute of arc.
In order to notice this you will need a very good clock and telescope and mount.
It is not something amateur astronomers (who will typically use the stars themselves to align their scope) will be able to do.
Not even levelling will help you here as the direction of "down" can actually vary due to movements under the crust, and movements of the crust.
So depending upon how you are defining the terms, this difference may exist.
After looking at stellar and sidereal days some more, it seems the difference does exist and is small.
after you prove that it is true what you claimed above...
I have proven it. You just ignore the proof. Although their may be confusion over what is meant by each term.
However, if Earth's axis precesses in CCW direction, how in the world can one sidereal period be shorter than one stellar period?
Firstly, wasn't one of the big objections you had the fact that Earth's axis precessed in a direction opposite its rotation? That it rotates CCW while precessing CW? Or are you now viewing it from below?
When viewing from above the north pole, the Earth's axis rotates CCW so the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. In addition it orbits CCW, meaning after one sidereal or stellar day it still needs to turn a bit more to face the sun, making the solar day longer.
But the precession is opposite this, so if you start with the northern hemisphere facing the sun (at the solstice), then after slightly less than one full orbit (i.e. a tropical year, slightly shorter than a sidereal year) we are again at the solstice but need to wait a bit longer to get back to the same point in our orbit.
If precession was CCW as well then the tropical year would be longer.
If I have the terminology correct, from wiki:
Earth's rotation period relative to the fixed stars, called its stellar day by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), is 86164.098 903 691 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.098 903 691s).[2][3] Earth's rotation period relative to the precessing or moving mean vernal equinox, its sidereal day, is 86164.090 530 832 88 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.090 530 832 88s).
So this means that according to these definitions, the stellar day is the time taken for Earth to rotate about its axis.
The sidereal day is how long it takes for earth to rotate in a rotating reference frame, that keeps the vernal equinox at the same point.
This can cause serious confusion as when I learnt of the sidereal day it was what that refers to as the stellar day. Perhaps the more annoying part of this is that the sidereal day is not connected to the sidereal year. So which did you mean?
Perhaps the simplest way to compare them is with a comparison with the mean solar day and with the sidereal and tropical year.
If I am understanding it correctly:
For a tropical year, there will be 1 additional sidereal day than solar days.
For a sidereal year, there will be 1 additional stellar day than solar days.
First a qualitative way:
Both the sidereal day and stellar day need to be shorter such that over the course of a "year", this amounts to a 1 day difference.
For a sidereal day, the year used is shorter, meaning it has less time to accumulate that day and thus it must be shorter than the mean solar day by more. Conversely the stellar day has more time (an extra 20 minutes) to make up this difference.
This means the sidereal day will be shorter than the stellar day.
And now some calculations.
First, assuming a tropical year is 365.2425 mean solar days (31556952 s) long. (Note: due to these approximations, these numbers will not match up with those from wiki, but will be "close").
This means we need 366.2425 sidereal days to be the same length.
This makes the sidereal day 86164.09073 s long.
The sidereal year is 20 minutes longer, i.e. 31558152 s.
This means there needs to be 365.2563889 mean solar days in this sidereal year.
This means there needs to be 366.2563889 stellar days in this sidereal year.
This means the stellar day needs to be 86164.09968 s long.
This puts this longer by 0.008945967 seconds.
Note that the difference from wiki is 0.0084 seconds. So as I said, close but not perfect.