It's justified to mention GrC(2,4) for modeling orbital gravity here because the OP's (and Kepler's) methods will not ever derive the scattering amplitude basis for gravity or the Grassmannian geometric manifold for calculating the 1-loop scattering because of algorithmic insufficiency at the universal function approximation problem.
What I took the time to share here saves many years of false starts at modeling gravity; which - ironically - Kepler's doesn't sufficiently model either.
A question to research:
What's wrong with Keplerian gravity?
GrC(2,4) is probably more efficient than for example how NASA SPICE toolkit models gravity rivers.
It's justified to mention GrC(2,4) for modeling orbital gravity here because the OP's (and Kepler's) methods will not ever derive the scattering amplitude basis for gravity or the Grassmannian geometric manifold for calculating the 1-loop scattering because of algorithmic insufficiency at the universal function approximation problem.
What I took the time to share here saves many years of false starts at modeling gravity; which - ironically - Kepler's doesn't sufficiently model either.
A question to research: What's wrong with Keplerian gravity?
GrC(2,4) is probably more efficient than for example how NASA SPICE toolkit models gravity rivers.