Many cranks have had their own view on this famous question.
Below are two of my preffered.
Which one do you think is the funniest?
Or do you think one is right and the other is wrong?

(1)http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton32.pdf
(2)http://www.wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas5.pdf

Note how they both precisely find the 43" !
Would you expect ont to convert the other?

Both brilliant pieces of maths unlike what St. Al does.

I particularly like the conclusion:

"The difference of 43´´/century with astronomic observations as regards the advance of Mercurys perihelion is not attributed to the curvature of space-time around the Sun, as the Theory of Relativity erroneously maintains."

You are right to assume Anderton is wrong!
And here is why Tsolkas is also wrong:

Tsolkas	Correct

so you imagine mercury enters the sun; so what

add on:

and its u Lal just talking nonsense as normal.

Obviously you read only your pet sentense in the Tolskas's masterpiece!

He calculates that the sun moves around the center of mass of the solar system,
and uses that motion and a pedagogical perihelion theory to deduce a drift of the perihelion.

The problem is that he just forgets that the orbit of Mercury "follows roughly" the sun around the center of mass, making the effect on the perihelion actually negligible.

And there are many more mistakes that you did not notice in this paper!
Even more than in Anderton's paper!!

and you just believe any nonsense your st. Al tells you anyway; so you are just devoid of rational thought.

Typical pseudoscience behaviour: personalisation of issues to replace rational arguments.
Anonymous seems out of arguments very soon.

you are a pseudoscientist Lal

for I discuss with you

is that English ? for I noee understandeeee

doesn't matter, you never

>>doesn't matter,

Of course, nothing you say really matters

There is just one small thing wrong with this picture:

Can you spot it?
Well, the Sun-Mercury Center of Mass must be always along the straight line between the sun and Mercury! That is because Mercury sees only (as the gravitational center) the mass enclosed by its orbit; and sees everything outside of that orbit as perturbations and nothing else. In other words, the above picture makes sense only as the center of mass for the orbit of Pluto, but not the orbit of Mercury; right Lal?

In this picture, Mercury is a very light body, while the sun and satrun are the very heavy body. These are the main features of a full calculation for the drift of the perihelion of Mercury. This leads to a drift ofabout (I do not remember exactly) 500"/century. The relativistic corrstion is 43"/ct. Tsolkas claimed the motion of the Sn around the solar system center of mass was neglected and would explain the drift by itslef. But this is wrong.

>>Tsolkas claimed the motion of the Sn around the solar system center of mass was neglected and would explain the drift by itslef.

And does your supposed calculation take that motion into account or not; or claim that motion does not exist; or whatever?

This figure shows the trajectory of the SSCM (solar system center of mass) in a frame centered on the sun.
This was calculated from the real orbits of all the planets in the solar system (1).

It is clear that this trajectory is not at all a circle.
Therefore, the simplified theory from (2) cannot be used to add the effect of the SSCM motion.
In addition, the simplified picture from previous post illustrate that "Mercury follows mainly the sun" around the SSCM.
The effect is therefore very much reduced compared to Tsolkas calculations.

By the way, ref (2) illustrates nicely the reason of the perihelion drift.
The radial oscillation and rotation of a planet have the same frequency for a pure 1/r potential.
Only the 1/r and the r² potential have this property or "symmetry" (3).
The perturbation by the other planets modifies the 1/r potential as shown simply in (2) and therefore the frequencies are not the same anymore the drift occurs.

(1) Keplerian Elements for Approximate Positions of the Major Planets,http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_pos
(2) Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury's perihelion precession,http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/price_ajp_47_531_79.pdf
(3) See Laplace-Runge vector

Your behaviour is just typical; why did I bother to think it might change into something sensible. None of the diagrams you offer are at those sites; it looks more like you are making stuff up.

You are right, I did these calculations myself.
This shows the paper by Tsolkas does not integrate correctly the motion of the SSCM in the perturbations of Mercury. There were at least two mistakes: the trajectory assumed for the SSCM was incorrect, and the calculation ommits the "Mercury mainly follows the sun".

It is surprising to see that wrong calculations so easily reproduce the right results
Is is the case also for Anderton?

We can dislike the general theory of relativity, but at least the calculations for the perihelion drift have been correctly carried out in the GR framework. My preffered derivation is that of Landau (1). Discussing the impact to the SSCM on the perihelion dirft would at least require:

- to check what has been actually taken into account by Le Verrier and followers
- to include the effect properly by going back to the full equations of motion.

In ref (2) the standard perturbation theory is exposed.

I do not discuss Anderton theory since it seems it receives little support.

(1)http://books.google.com/books?id=QIxD3Z82AagC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fields+landau#PPA328,M1
(2) C:\Documents and Settings\jadoul\My Documents\Personnal\misc 2008\phys\The Foundations of Celestial Mechanics, Collins\The Foundations of Celestial Mechanics.mht

My calculations of the SSCM can be found there:

http://www.geocities.com/l.albatros/temp/sunCmShort.xls

full of tricks aren't you - a link to a potential virus threat

clearly you have many tricks to avoid talking physicks

the tricks are by u