Just generally speaking here.

Remember, absence of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The many physicists who state that it doesn't work is evidence against it.

I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.

Sure, we know that the "three-body problem" is so far not solvable analytically but so what?

There is no need to solve the n-body problem analytically because it has been simulated numerically for centuries, long before automatic programmable computers.

By 1859 it was known that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit differed from that derived from *Newtonian Mechanics* by *43 arcseconds per century*.

Astronomers were confident of their measurements and calculations to know that "something was missing".

Show us any flat-Earth calculation or prediction made to anything like that precision!

Then the Nautical Almanac, first published in 1766, predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and 57 stars for at least the next 12 months to sufficient accuracy for celestial navigation.

Try that with your flat Earth Cosmology!

So who really cares about your three-bodied problem apart from it being an interesting mathematical enigma?

Actually, Einstein just corrected an epicycle. Epicycles are still the way prediction is performed in astronomy.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005715.pdf

“ The characteristics of movement of the planets determine the entire set of dynamic properties in the solar system. The rotation of the planets around the Sun is subject to Kepler's laws which make it possible to approximately determine the position of the planet on a non-perturbed orbit at any moment of time. In order to transfer from the position closest to a more precise definition (ephemeris of the planet), it is necessary to take into consideration **perturbations** in motion. These **perturbations** leading to deviation from the calculated elliptical trajectory (Kepler ellipse) occur as a result of mutual attraction of planets, depending on their position relative to each other and periodically changing with the passage of time. Additional **perturbation** is detected in the movement of Mercury for which, due to the closeness of the Sun, one must introduce a correction for the shift of the perihelion by 42" in a century; this comes from the general theory of relativity. It is impossible, truly, to exclude the fact that the agreement of these observations with the value of this effect was theoretically predicted by A. Einstein within the limits of error of measurement (=1%) caused, to an equal degree, by the effect of the quadrapole moment of the Sun, taking into consideration in a first approximation, the difference in the external gravitational potential of the Sun from the Newtonian potential for an ideal sphere. ”

Purturbation = Epicycle. See this quote from Charles Lane Poor:

*Gravitation Vs. Relativity*

Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog

“ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations are epicycles with a gravitational disguise. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Charles Lane Poor also disagrees that Einstein even made a correct explanation.

*Relativity and the Motion of Mercury*

Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3394

From the Introduction: “ Does the relativity theory, as asserted by Einstein, explain and account for even the single motion of tile perihelion of Mercury? In what way do the formulas of relativity differ from those of the classical mathematics of Newton, and how do these new formulas explain this motion? It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this single phase of the matter; to show that the very equations, or formulas, cited by the relativists as furnishing an explanation of this motion, utterly fail to furnish such an explanation. The formulas of relativity dynamics can not and do not explain the observed perihelial motion of Mercury. ”

You should really read your sources

Poors opposition was mainly the defence of Newtonian theory, although there are some who thought he may have been a member of 'The Alliance '

He was definitely part of a group who argued against Einstein writing a number of papers in the 20's, the last in 1930. The scientific community didnt wake up in 1917 and say yup GR is correct, it was debated for decades, and still to this day has missing elements, unification theory.

However, GR is internally consistent and it is understood that it's not a universal law, like Newton's.

As ever, RE source to attempt an FE premise, Poor argues on the shape of orbits not that the earth was flat.

Goes back to one of the other questions you regularly evade;

Can you provide any FE evidence to any FE hypothesis that does not rely on RE evidence as its basis?

So far no...