AG AND GENERAL RELATIVITY COMPARISONS WITH ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS

Introductory Note AG and General Relativity: Comparisons with Astronomical Observations This document brings together published astronomical observations and calculations within General Relativity (GR) and the Alternative Model of Gravity (AG), the gravitational sector of Alternative Metric-Clock Cosmology (AMC). Its purpose is to provide a transparent basis for comparison: the same observable quantities, consistent units, explicitly stated inputs, and a clear distinction between measurements, model-dependent inferences, and theoretical predictions. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… The motivation is to examine how far a different physical account of gravitation can reproduce observed phenomena and where its predictions become distinguishable from those of GR. The AG calculations retain a Euclidean reference-space description and specified laws for clock behaviour, optical propagation, and massive-body motion. These laws are held fixed across the comparisons rather than adjusted independently for each phenomenon. The gravitational interpretation of GR is used as a comparator, not silently adopted as an additional AG premise. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… The tables cover solar light deflection and propagation delays, solar and white-dwarf gravitational redshifts, stellar orbits near the Galactic Centre, gravitational-lensing time delays, and compact-source observations associated with Sagittarius A* and M87*. The updated supplement examines the radical and exponential AG optical branches separately, alongside the Schwarzschild comparator, and includes critical optical scales, finite-distance lensing calculations, and selected interferometric diagnostics. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… Several AG calculations are compatible with the selected observational benchmarks under the stated assumptions. At leading order, a number of these results coincide with GR. This agreement establishes compatibility at the level tested, but does not uniquely select either physical interpretation. At higher orders and in strong-field optical calculations, the models produce differences that motivate more discriminating observations and more complete modelling of the sources. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… Numerical agreement and disagreement are treated on the same basis. Reconstructed emission rings are distinguished from calculated critical curves and inferred shadows; synthetic configurations are not presented as detected astronomical systems. Where AG and a GR comparator share the same lens model and distance–time inputs, any resulting discrepancy is attributed to that tested combination rather than selectively to one theory. Assumptions, uncertainties, and unresolved observational correspondences remain visible throughout. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… I am making this comparative study available to encourage independent examination, reproduction of the calculations, and constructive scientific discussion. The edition updated on 3 November 2026 records both useful agreements and remaining limitations; it does not claim an exhaustive survey or demonstrated statistical superiority of AG over GR. Its central aim is to identify what the available comparisons establish and what further theoretical developments and observations could genuinely distinguish the competing descriptions of gravity. AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… AG_GR_Astronomical_Observations… Valentin Ionescu