And you will again - or someone will, there's always someone willing to feed the troll it seems.

What Tom repeatedly fails to understand, or pretends to, is that breaking a problem which we currently can't solve down into smaller problems which we can is a perfectly valid technique.

The problem is that planets, moons, and asteroids traversing the solar system in the real scenario would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical fudges. If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I've read all that. I'm just trying to figure out the significance as it pertains to FE. Is this some sort of argument for UA?

As well, using the numerical solutions seem to get a fairly high level of accuracy. Perhaps not perfect, but very good. And utilized with alot of success. So why is so important to FE that we don't quite yet have an analytical solution?

You can use unrelated gravitational physics, limited gravitational interaction, and mathematical fudges to come to any result you want. None of it shows that universal gravitation actually works to simulate astronomical systems. That it needs to be done this way does more to discredit it than support it.

It should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, for the paths of asteroids to be explainable, and for solar systems and galaxies to exist. Yet the difficulty simulating this undermines accepted theories of astronomy.

The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that. That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation. You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.

Your model simply doesn't work and the excuses are poor.

Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.