LOL! There is a guy who posts or posted in sci.physics who goes by the name "Uncle Al" and I thought you meant him. Ok, with you now.
Yes that Al is relevant.
It isn't handwaving and prose. I have done calculations wherever possible. I have shown the actual amount that the planets will move the core of the Sun N or S within the uncertainties of the present day knowledge of the radiation and relativistic content of the Sun. I have shown from there that this will affect the temperature at the surface enough to explain the observed levels of fluctuation in the so called "solar constant".

However I cannot finish the job because it obviously has to be integrated into existing models of the Sun. I am not in a position to do that. However my objective is not to show exactly what happens but to show that this approach is fruitful in its results (the correlations etc that you also scoff at) and so should be adopted into solar models so that more definitive results can be achieved.

Your approach to all this is quite unreasonable when I have given these reasons many times and you have never disagreed with those reasons.
Well if you don't tell the housewife that she needs some ground wheat and yeast, what chance does she have of making bread? Up until now your housewife has been trying to make bread with wheat alone and I have told her that it cannot happen without yeats as well.
I don't understand what you are asking here. I have made clear the base several times. Are you referring to whether relativistic matter is also affected like radiation? If so, I have already stated that I think that it is but am not capable of doing the GR calculations. Even those that say they are capable of this do not give consistent answers. It is a moot point anyway, because you have acknowledged that it does apply to the radiation, so there is an effect it is a question of degree only.

So we have agreement that there is some such effect of uncertain degree due to several factors - the uncertainty of whether relativistic matter is affected the same as radiation, and the uncertainty in the actual radiation and relativistic mass content of the Sun. But there is an effect and the calculation based on the general form of the effect (greater acceleration of the core compared to the surface of the Sun) does lead to a clear calculation of the fluctuations in absolute displacement of the solar core.

Analysis of that absolute displacement shows it to have a number of frequencies which relate to planetary periods, especially pairs of the giant planets such as J-N and J+N, J-S and J+S and so on. The strong periods predicted by this means do agree with the strong periods observed in the Sun to the degree of accuracy that sunspot records allow. By this I mean that for the period since about the 1700s where we have annual means that are meaningful, the periods extracted by FFT or other means have a certain accuracy, but for the period from about 500 BC, the dominant 11.08 year cycle has been found by Schove and others to a greater accuracy.

Furthermore, this method actually provides the full mechanism (even if not perfectly quantified) and is the only proposal for how planets influence the Sun that demonstrates that the 11.07 year cycle is predicted to be stronger than the 11.86 year cycle of Jupiter's perihelion. Both the tidal and COM proposals result in the 11.86 year period being expected to have a much higher amplitude.
I am not simmering. And you aren't actually asking questions. Rather you are sniping. If there is some weak point in my argument then please ask me to explain something specific rather than just make sweeping generalisations.

But if you are expecting me to produce here a set of equations for modeling the solar interior to get the answer then it should be perfectly clear that this is not going to happen.