Think of the "tree" as an array of aimed panels,
and you will see that while a FEW of the panels will always be in "optimum" orientation, NONE of the others will be so. They will be out by a few degrees, to as much as 180 degrees (assuming that the tree does NOT aim any panels to the unsunny side of the sky -- north).
In other words, the situation is the same as if it they were mounted on a cone, with a surface following the "normal" (perpendicular) of the sun's track. It should be evident, that MORE cells will be MORE out of the normal at any moment, than would be with a rigid mounted, average-orientation mount. Indeed, many of the cells will be out of the sunlight completely.
That said, I still give kudos to the young visionary. MOST successful scientists started out with similar innocently half-complete ideas. What a scientific education does, is fill in the holes, so you won't make so many mistakes going forward. And what an exposure to internet trolls does, is inform you that not everyone can see the genius involved even in good ideas that don't meet the eventual muster of reality.
So ... GOOD JOB kid -- seriously. Keep it up, and no one will be able to hold you back!
BTW, there are other ways to drive a mobile array, than using the panels' power to do so. For instance, if panels are expensive (which is current reality) then an aimed and selectively shielded array that heats a series of balanced, sealed water-flow bottles could change the balance of the whole setup, causing "energyless" rotation.
