[markjo]

Actually, the sun's gravitational influence on the moon is about twice that of the earth's.  However, the moon's orbital velocity around the earth is about 1km/s while escape velocity at that distance is 1.2km/s. 
https://www.universetoday.com/116158/why-doesnt-the-sun-steal-the-moon/

Then again, it's also possible to look at the moon's orbit as being around the sun.

[manicminer]

I didn't think FET believed in the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun.  Or is it a case of some FE models do while others don't?

[QED]

QED, the matter is simple. Does the moon ignore the gravitational influence of the sun while it orbits the earth?

If not, then we can't treat the Sun-Earth-Moon system as two two body problems. Nor can we treat it as a single two body problem by considering the earth and moon as one and using the earth-moon center of mass as the second anchorpoint. That simplification also assumes that the moon cannot feel the gravitational pull from a body in the system.

These are all cheats that work around a non-working system. The moon has mass and it must simultaneously feel the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth. It can't be simplified.

We are at an impasse. I am expecting experimental evidence from the three body research, where such configurations should surely have manifested in the super computer simulations that have been done, and you keep telling us that cheats and two body approximations are enough.

Surely there should be an example of a three body solution with bodies of different masses, or one that looks like a heliocentric system. Yet all the ones we have seen in the galleries (which are numerical solutions, not anlytical solutions -- those don't exist) require at least two bodies of equal masses, and exist in odd loopy orbits. Other similations employ the two-body cheats. There must be a simulation of gravity somewhere which operates in favor of heliocentricism.

The scientific method demands that we demonstrate by experiment, and you appear to be ignoring all experimental evidence, are telling us that it is unneeded, and are repeatedly telling us that we can just cheat a little with two-body approximations, apparently cognisant that it won't work any other way.

That is, in my opinion, not enough. We should either seek experimental evidence from a full gravity simulation where these approximations should manifest naturally or admit that doesn't work. If it can't work then it can't work.

The impasse you have defined is contrived. Does the moon ignore the electrostatic forces from the Sun as it orbits? No. Do we consider those effects when computing its orbit? No. You simply do not understand the science surrounding orbits.

There are incredible electromagnetic interactions between the sun and the Earth. You do not know this, but now that you do, you should insist that orbital trajectories account for these effects. But you will be made to look foolish, because those effects do not impact the trajectories. Given your current knowledge in this area, you are not prepared to understand how this is true, or diagnose under what conditions it would make a difference.

Your opinion of “what is enough” is irrelevant, because your knowledge in these areas is absent. You are free to maintain your position, of course, but it is obvious that you do so without any regard for seeking the truth.

If you ever wish to actually learn about these topics, do just let me know, and I will teach you.

Until then, I wish you could see from an outside perspective just how foolish you look.

[iamcpc]

Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?

Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. 

Let alone a planet that has a moon Orbiting a star  with many other planets several of which  have multiple moons in which every objects gravity is affecting every orbit every time they pass by each other.

I figure in the next 1,000 years with major advancements in computers, AI, math, physics etc RE could come up with some sort of more accurate model for the 3 body problem. Hell they could even solve it! Unfortunately solving the 3 body problem does not support the RE model at all. RE has committed to solving the 200+ body problem. One star, 8 planets, and over 190 moons.

It would be a lot easier for the RE gravity/orbit model if there were only 3 bodies.  Very good evidence pointing out flaws in the current round earth gravity/orbiting model.

[AATW]

RE has committed to solving the 200+ body problem. One star, 8 planets, and over 190 moons.

And comets, asteroids etc, etc.
There are millions of objects in the solar system. And at a more granular level, the rings of Saturn are made up of billions of rocks, how could we begin to model that perfectly?
But, and here's the point you are collectively ignoring or not understanding - a model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
And a model doesn't have to be perfect to prove that the thing it's modelling is correct. Or rather, imperfections in a model doesn't mean the thing it is modelling must be wrong, it just means the model is imperfect. Einstein came along a century ago and showed that Newton's model of gravity wasn't quite right. But it's good enough for most practical purposes - it got us to the moon.
The models we have of the solar system are good enough. They've got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars. They've got craft to fly past other planets.
Now, of course, you can say that's all faked but that's a lazy argument which you could use to dismiss anything which doesn't fit your worldview.

Meanwhile, the FE model doesn't even know what the sun is, how it's powered or how any of the planets orbit.
Now, Tom bemoans that no budget for FE research. But you might all want to think about why that is.
Why are there no flat earth astronomers?
HINT: It's the same reason there are no research budgets for alchemy...

[manicminer]

The models we have of the solar system are good enough. They've got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars. They've got craft to fly past other planets.

I completely agree. The 'mainstream' heliocentric model of the Solar System that we have used for at least the last two or three centuries is able to account, and account very accurately for the observed current and future events that we will see. That would lead me to ask what else do we need a model to do?  There is a saying.. 'If it works... then why try to fix it?'

All this waffle about the n body problem not being solved is irrelevant I feel and certainly no evidence against the heliocentric model.  If we can predict where the planets are going to be at any time in the future, eclipses and events associated with Jupiter and Saturn then we must be getting something right.