[SiDawg]

I did read your research. Skimmed the religious and the mathematical sections. No one can accept or reject your idea if they don't understand it. Again, draw some force vectors or at least explain WHY the earth would rotate other than "because a rocket or a bullet does".... If you were right, it would be a simple fundamental aspect of physics, much simpler than general relativity. It would be a fundamental change to Newton's law of gravity. I doubt the large amount of maths you've used is really necessary to describe the force you're proposing, it seems to just be maths for the sake of maths. If you can draw a diagram or at least describe something that gives people a reason to analyse your maths, that would help. Start simple.

[Astrophysics]

I did read your research. Skimmed the religious and the mathematical sections. No one can accept or reject your idea if they don't understand it. Again, draw some force vectors or at least explain WHY the earth would rotate other than "because a rocket or a bullet does".... If you were right, it would be a simple fundamental aspect of physics, much simpler than general relativity. It would be a fundamental change to Newton's law of gravity. I doubt the large amount of maths you've used is really necessary to describe the force you're proposing, it seems to just be maths for the sake of maths. If you can draw a diagram or at least describe something that gives people a reason to analyse your maths, that would help. Start simple.

Thank You, Sir. Yes, I am improving the style of the paper.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.

That's because it's outside the scope of relativity. The people to ask about this would be geologists.

[douglips]

I can conclude, that no theoretical derivation of the observable slow precession is made yet (in exception of mine) within the General Relativity formalism. My arguments are in the Researchgate link. You can accept or reject. But I am right. I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.

Did you miss my post with the links to Newton and Wikipedia? Because Newtonian physics
a) is what Relativity tends towards when velocities and gravitational fields are low enough
b) has a derivation of the 26000 year precession.

But, if you insist on a full General Relativity treatment, how about this?
See section 2.2 for the specific bits you're looking for (I think.)

http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/RAA_papers/Published_finalvesion_2015_04/000_1504/ms1851_tangkai/03ms1851.pdf

[douglips]

I saw nowhere the derivation of observable 26000 years precession within General Relativity formalism.

That's because it's outside the scope of relativity. The people to ask about this would be geologists.

That's --- not at all right. Geologists study rocks, physicists and astrophysicists study how those rocks move through space.

Relativity does have a place in computing the equinox precession, but that place is generally "it's a tiny effect and why bother" unless you're trying to publish something.

[Astrophysics]

........
But, if you insist on a full General Relativity treatment, how about this?
See section 2.2 for the specific bits you're looking for (I think.)

http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/RAA_papers/Published_finalvesion_2015_04/000_1504/ms1851_tangkai/03ms1851.pdf

Thank You, but it is useful only for list of links in it. Because paper itself is just technical calculation using formula, which is derived elsewhere. I would like to check validity of theoretical derivation.

[Astrophysics]

Friends, I have greatly improved file in researchgate, please click on the link in the thread.