But you don't know to ask: that's the problem; They're all trying new QG and dark energy correction factors.

One can't solve 3-body problems without Superfluid Quantum Gravity, thus this that I took the time to add is very relevant.

Not worth helping then.

Given such an anti- AI-with-citation policy, researchers preparing comment content with citations for the platform have a counterproductive incentive to parallel construct after using e.g. search engines that use AI (Google, Bing,), and also an incentive to not cite their sources?

> One can't solve 3-body problems without Superfluid Quantum Gravity

The article (from 1962) does not predict 3-body accelerations of large masses or particles using current methods (probably because they had not yet been developed at the time).

(Ironically, in context to the rejection of AI methods to summarize superfluid Quantum Gravity for the thread's benefit (and not my own),)

N-body gravity problems are probably best solved by AI methods; it is well understood that there are no known closed-form solutions for n-body gravity problems.

Three body problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

I'd love to see a chatbot try lol. That's all I'll say about that...

PROMPT: "Demonstrate the superfluid quantum gravity solution to the three body problem in sympy."