Yes, we've talked about numerical solutions many times before
Again, the far bigger issue is that you have no actual argument.
The three body problem doesn't mean such systems will just fall apart.
We are taught that it should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, yet the greatest mathematicians of human history have been unable to get it to work."
Quite the opposite.
The numerical solutions show it does work, depending on the conditions.
Again, all they haven't been able to "get work" is a simple analytical solution.
This in no way shows anything impossible about the system.
Just like helium can exist which also suffers from the three body problem.
If you click on that link you will understand why this particular line of argumentation fails.
Again, quite the opposite.
If you were honest, and actually thought about what your argument was, you would realise why your line of argumentation fails.
You are saying "we don't have a nice simple solution for this, so it impossible to exist".
It is pure nonsense.
The existence or lack thereof of a simple analytical solution has no bearing on if something exists or not.
Numerical solutions for the n-body problem use cheats and workarounds. They are models that use limited gravitational interaction or ad-hoc falsities.
Wrong again.
Once more, the three body problem is not just limited to gravity.
Again, if we accept your nonsense that means helium can't exist, oxygen can't exist, carbon can't exist, and so on.
It is irrelevant that a model can predict events accurately if the model is fundamentally wrong.
And a numerical solution is not a model.
In the actual RE, HC model, gravity is universal.
But there is no simple analytical solution to it, so approximations are used instead.
Again, this does NOTHING to show a problem with the RE model.
So prediction doesn't prove that the mathematical device used to create the prediction is the correct one.
And no one is saying it is.
Yet again, you are trying to change the argument.
Remember, you brought this up claiming it was a problem with the RE model. Now you are trying to pretend REers are bringing it up to prove the RE model is true.
You guys read the article and then proceeded to play dumb and argue that "it doesn't matter because it's accurate", which is an incredibly poor argument.
No, we don't.
You bring up the three body problem to pretend the RE model doesn't work, and we explain why your claim is BS.
We can model the system to any desired level of accuracy based upon the limitations of the devices used for the calculation.
You may as well be claiming no one can determine the circumference of a circle, because pi is only approximated.
Numerical models can take into consideration all gravitational interactions that are known.
They are not limited to ignoring some.
What typically uses limited gravity are simplifications which are not necessarily numerical models and in fact can be analytical solutions.
Again, the existence of the three body problem no more rules out the existence of the HC solar system, as it rules out the existence of helium.
Both exist, regardless of the inability to create an analytical solution.
The three body problem is NOT a fault or problem with the RE model.
It does not challenge the existence of a round Earth orbiting the sun with a moon orbiting it.
So my point still stands. The RE model works, and you are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.
Instead, you blatantly lie to everyone to pretend a non-problem for the model is magically a problem for the model.