So what I'm reading here is that you completely discounted every answer you've been given because you didn't like them and/or refused to do more research about them
Nope, I discounted them because they were wrong, as I explained each time, sometimes with a high level of detail. But if you disagree, please show me that my justifications for rejecting their responses were wrong.
Thork's theory of celestial gears is actually quite well defined, even if you don't like it. Personally, I prefer the Aetheric whirlwind theory. You can read about both of them in the Wiki. But please don't be so condescending about it.
Again, that part about the sun changing speed and why was quickly abandoned as it was not very relevant for the issue I wanted to discuss. This is typical of the discussions in this forum: FEers always miss the point by trying to subtly (or not so in some cases) redefining the question so that it's easier for them to argue.
And also, I don't know what to think about Thork's theory of celestial gears as he didn't even bother to provide a link to describe it (and the wiki contains maybe one or two sentences about it). Thork, and probably other FEers, seem to think that someone who makes a claim doesn't have to argue for it; he just states it, and it becomes true. And whenever anyone asks him to provide arguments and sources, he accuses them of being lazy. That's not how discussions work. If I was claiming that Russell's teapot does exist, you would be right to ask me for arguments and evidence. And if I told you to do your research yourself (you super lazy bastard), then you would be right to consider me an idiot.