Theres this thing on my mind that has been bugging me.

I've heard that light has no mass but then how come it gets affected by gravity?

How come black holes have so much gravity that not even light can escape when light has no mass?

And if it turns out that light does have some mass, then how come it can travel at speed C when I keep hearing that to get something with mass close to speed C will require something like all the engergy in the universe (because the faster it goes the more resistance will be put on it)?

Please help me out this its kind of been bugging me. I don't have a scientific brackground so no big words please. Cheers.

Theres this thing on my mind that has been bugging me.

I've heard that light has no mass but then how come it gets affected by gravity?

How come black holes have so much gravity that not even light can escape when light has no mass?



Please help me out this its kind of been bugging me. I don't have a scientific brackground so no big words please. Cheers.
Light only has a relativistic mass. At c it has energy and therefor it is exerting a mass. At anything below c it cant have any energy and therefor exist.

And if it turns out that light does have some mass, then how come it can travel at speed C when I keep hearing that to get something with mass close to speed C will require something like all the engergy in the universe (because the faster it goes the more resistance will be put on it)?

Due to light having no rest mass, it has to have an infinate gamma(travel at c) to have energy and therefore exist. It has no relativistic mass at below c so therefor doesn't require e to be infinate at c.

ohhhhh of course! that makes sense. thanks for that mate

Hi Noel, and welcome to the forums.

Intro
Gravity is tricky to understand. No one understands it fully yet (people are working hard to develop a good quantum model of gravity). The best model we have so far is Albert Einstein's General theory of Relativity, which refined Isaac Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation.

Newton's gravitation is an exquisite example of a theory that can be stated very simply and has extraordinary predictive power.

Einstein's gravitation can be stated even more simply*, has even better predictive power, and I'm told it is considered more beautiful by theoretical physicists.


Newton
According to Newton's model, any two bodies exert a force on each other in proportion to their mass. This force leads to an acceleration for each body, again in proportion to its mass.
This leads to a problem for massless bodies... they have zero gravitational force applied to them, but since they're massless they need zero force to accelerate! So we can't tell directly what the effect of gravity is on light in Newton's model - it could be anything.

However, we can tell indirectly. No matter what the mass of an object is, it falls at the same rate when you drop it (unless it is significantly supported by the air). If you throw an object at a particular speed and angle, it will follow the same parabolic path no matter how heavy it is. The acceleration of anything in a particular gravitational field is the same, no matter what its mass is - including massless things.

In Newton's model of gravity, light is expected to follow the same path that a bullet would follow if it was fired at the speed of light.


Einstein
In Einstein's model, things are different. It says that the force of gravity isn't really an objective force like electromagnetism, but a pseudo-force like centrifugal force or coriolis force. Objects in free fall (ie not supported by anything) will have natural paths - geodesics in spacetime.

In small enough regions, spacetime is always "flat" (like a stretched rubber sheet), so the natural paths are essentially straight. But over time and distance spacetime can be curved (the sheet is actually the surface of a large balloon), and while natural paths might still look straight some odd things can happen (for example, draw a large triangle on a balloon and measure its angles).

The apparent "force" of gravity comes in with the effect that mass and energy has on the shape of spacetime. Using the overused balloon analogy, a mass is like a bump or a dent in the balloon's surface. Poke your finger into the balloon to make a dent. Now imagine an ant crawling across the balloon in a natural path (ie always straight on a small scale) passing close to your finger. The ant's path will be bent... as though it was attracted by your finger. It wasn't, of course... it was just following a natural path. But its path was indirectly affected by your finger, because of the changed shape of the balloon's surface.

In Einstein's model, light follows natural paths in spacetime just like objects in freefall do, so it is also affected by the curvature of spacetime that results from massive objects. Incidentally, the effect is twice what it is in Newton's model (I don't know why), so this gives a way to distinguish which one is the better model.

In Einstein's model of gravity, gravity is curved spacetime, and the path of light is a geodesic in spacetime.


I hope that helps... I've tried to keep it simple and not mislead you. Don't take my word for any of this, of course (I'm not an expert). Check it out with more reliable sources. A library is a good place to start!

Pete


* Understanding it is another matter - what the heck does http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e/f/eef32307044e380a2d489515abc1548c.png mean, anyway?!?

Good post Pete!

Something I've always been curious about, why does light slow down in matter thus leading to refraction. Without having any real knowledge of the subject, I've always thought that it didnt actually slow down when traversing matter, say in a prism, it just had a longer path to take due to its having to wind its way through past all the atoms.

Good thought, Maast.

And what happens when particulate matter travels faster than the speed of light in a medium? For example, the speed of light in some clear plastics is about 0.7c, yet high speed particles can enter that plastic, and travel quite a distance, at speeds closer to 0.99c. Cerenkov thought about that, and concluded that such particles would emit a characteristic light, called Cerenkov radiation, given off in a 'cone' in the direction of the particle.

A simplified way to look at light as it travels through a medium such as a prism is that it is 'retarded' by interactions with the electrons of the medium, leading to a lower speed. That way oversimplifies the effect however. The actual answer is that it is not thoroughly understood, though we can certainly work well with the results, and our current understanding.

Something I've always been curious about, why does light slow down in matter thus leading to refraction. Without having any real knowledge of the subject, I've always thought that it didnt actually slow down when traversing matter, say in a prism, it just had a longer path to take due to its having to wind its way through past all the atoms.
Hi Maast,
I don't know. I have a vague notion that there are two explanations, depending on how fundamental you want to get.

I think that in the classical Maxwell's electrodynamics model, light in a medium does in fact go slower, according to the medium's permittivity and permeability. I have a very vague idea that phase velocity and group velocity might be involved too, but don't rely on it.

I think that Feynmann's quantum electrodynamics model describes things at a more fundamental level, with photons interacting with atoms and electron shells. In this model, the photons move at c in between interactions, but are retarded in some way when they encounter an electron. I have a vague idea that the photon is absorbed then almost immediately re-emitted, but I don't know the details.

The actual answer is that it is not thoroughly understood, though we can certainly work well with the results, and our current understanding.
Isn't it? I certainly don't understand it, but I've been led to believe that QED describes the mechanism of refraction quite thoroughly.

Pete says:"Einstein's gravitation can be stated even more simply*".

Anyone who will, as Pete has just done, claim that the stress energy tensors, which define the gravity field in General Relativity, are stated simply is exaggerating not just a little bit but an awful darn lot.

Pete says: "So we can't tell directly what the effect of gravity is on light in Newton's model - it could be anything."

In his book Relativity Einstein explained that he calculated the bending of starlight as it would pass close by the sun by first calculating the deflection by the usual amount by gravity and then adding deflection according to his General Relativity tensor(s).

Pete says: "Incidentally, the effect is twice what it is in Newton's model (I don't know why),"

I have just explained that Einstein himself explained that he double dipped by first calculating the Newton deflection and then adding his own deflection, to double the Newton deflection.

In his book Relativity Einstein explained that he calculated the bending of starlight as it would pass close by the sun by first calculating the deflection by the usual amount by gravity and then adding deflection according to his General Relativity tensor(s).

Pete says: "Incidentally, the effect is twice what it is in Newton's model (I don't know why),"

I have just explained that Einstein himself explained that he double dipped by first calculating the Newton deflection and then adding his own deflection, to double the Newton deflection.

That is false. The equations of general relativity in the Schwartzschild geometry simply give a result which is twice what we expect from taking the mass equivalent of photon energy in a Newtonian model.

There's no double dipping. To claim that only makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Hi Maast,
I think that in the classical Maxwell's electrodynamics model, light in a medium does in fact go slower, according to the medium's permittivity and permeability.

And light, as was rigorously researched at the request of the Army in 1908, does go faster when the permittivity and permeabality of the medium dictate it.

That is false.
There's no double dipping. To claim that only makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you had ever actually read a science book, in particular Einstein's Relativity, you would not utter such an absurd statement.

To claim that Einstein himself did not make the printed statement I have mentioned, when it is in too many issues of the book to count, only makes it clearer than usual that JamesR does truly not know what he is talking about.

When is the last time JR read a science book? My guess is about 1962.

JR: How much do you bet me that Einstein did not state, in his book Relativity, that he first took the usual gravity deflection and then added his own General Relativity deflection? Want to bet your bank account, your house, car and yacht? You can keep your wife and children.

What am I saying? I don't want a boat. What kind of motorcyle do you have? And what does your wife look like?

Anyone who will, as Pete has just done, claim that the stress energy tensors, which define the gravity field in General Relativity, are stated simply is exaggerating not just a little bit but an awful darn lot.
The Einstein field equations can indeed be stated very simply: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e/f/eef32307044e380a2d489515abc1548c.png

In his book Relativity Einstein explained that he calculated the bending of starlight as it would pass close by the sun by first calculating the deflection by the usual amount by gravity and then adding deflection according to his General Relativity tensor(s).
As I recall, Einstein simply stated that a ray passing close to the sun would be deflected according to GR, with no mention of the Newtonian prediction.
I could be wrong, of course, but I'll make a small wager that I'm right and you're wrong.
The loser must begin all subsequent responses to the winner by addressing them as "Master of reading century old texts".

Here's an online copy of Relativity (http://www.bartleby.com/173/). In which chapter did Einstein make the alleged statement?

And light, as was rigorously researched at the request of the Army in 1908, does go faster when the permittivity and permeabality of the medium dictate it.
You have a habit of making empty assertions, CANGAS. That's why noone takes your word for anything. Do you haved a citation for this research?

You have a habit of making empty assertions, CANGAS. That's why noone takes your word for anything. Do you haved a citation for this research?

Pete has a very sad habit of claiming that I make bad assertions, and the subsequent bad habit of never once proving it.

The book Relativity by Albert Einstein is a small and very quickly readable book ( at least, for people who have reading skills and no allergic reaction to reading science books ) which I have attentively read in two hours. Any one serious about discussing Special Relativity now should have already read this book a long time ago, and reread it a number of times. It should be no mystery to anyone here as to where to find anything important in this book. And it should be no insurmountable hurdle for someone like Pete or even JamesR to read it attentively for their first time and find for their own education important things such as Einstein's own statements concerning his calculation of the bending of starlight in the sun's gravity.

Next Pete and JamesR will be demanding that I take my favorite hacksaw and open their brain case and drop in handwritten notes explaining Relativity written so that even they can understand it. Sorry, boys, I have too much respect for my hand tools to ever consider anything like that. Read the book yourself or forget it and go and bluff your way in the basket weaving thread.

CANGAS, if your claim was correct it would be easy to demonstrate.
So why don't you?

Wow

I just wanted to comment on Pete's comment that QED describes the mechanism of refraction thoroughly. Without debating what the word "thorough" means, describing how it will work is different than providing a thorough understanding of how it works.

By way of analogy, the element Technetium is theorized to have been produced in the super nova(e) that created most of the higher-Z elements of our solar system. The isotopes so produced would have ranged from Tc-90 to Tc-111, or thereabouts. All would have rapidly decayed out except for the isotopes Tc-97, Tc-98 and Tc-99, which with a half-life of some 2,600,000 years, 4,200,000 years and 213,000 years, respectively, would have remained in existence during the first few hundred million years of the proto-solar-system's existence, but thereafter decayed to non-existence (by decaying into other elements) after 4.2 billion years (1,000 half lives) or so. Hence, none exists in nature today (in detectable quantities), and because it has to be created by technical means, it was given the name Technetium.

Nowadays we create Technetium by either fission of Uranium (or Plutonium), or more usually by bombardment of Molybdenum by neutrons (in a nuclear reactor). This is done on a large-scale basis, and the predominant isotope (Mo-98 @ 24.13% percent occurrence) is converted into Mo-99, which is radioactive with a half-life of 2.75 days.

The decay product of Mo-99 is 'milked' from the 'Moly cow' (which are shipped to radiopharmacies around the globe, shielded typically by DU), being Technetium-99, and used daily in nuclear medicine departments around the globe for the past three decades or longer.

However, the Technetium decay product that is produced by the decay of Mo-99 is in an 'excited' nuclear state, referred to as Tc-99m, and it too undergoes an isomeric transition decay (analogous to a radioactive decay) with a half-life of 6.01 hours. The IT decay of Tc-99m to Tc-99 releases a gamma photon of discrete energy (140.5 KeV), which is the useful property for medical imaging procedures.

These processes are well-understood for the past several decades, and good use is made of those processes. It is 'thoroughly' understood.

What is not understood, however, is a model that would describe the internal workings of the Tc-99 nucleus that would both predict the existence of a semi-stable excited state, as well as what the discrete energy should be when the excited state decays back to the ground state. Presumptively, it is analogous to the 'shell' model of electron orbitals, but rather a 'shell' model of quarks inside the nucleus. While we know by empirical means the exact energy of the excited state (140.5 KEV), and can use that knowledge to our advantage, we do NOT know how to desribe a working model of any useful predictive value for Tc-99, or for any other isotope, for that matter.

The LHC in Switzerland, scheduled for initial operation in late 2007, is designed to shed some additional light on the internal workings of nuclear matter (by creating a quark-gluon plasma, and then seeing how they recombine). Perhaps we might begin to get a glimmering of understanding of what makes the nucleus tick by that experimentation. Don't hold your breath, however. It is also possible we may obtain an undertanding of how mini black holes could be created, or how strangelets could be created, as detailed elsewhere.

Anyway, Pete, thanks for your many cogent comments.

Thanks Walter.
On your analogy, it seems to me that "how it works" of refraction has been known since Snell, and QED provides the model that predicts it. (but I could be wrong... I don't pretend to understand the slightest bit of QED).

I agree that "thorough understanding" is an elusive beast. One might question whether it is possible to have a thorough understanding of anything at all... There is always another "why".

My thanks to you as well. It is pleasant to have an intelligent discussion.

CANGAS:

JR: How much do you bet me that Einstein did not state, in his book Relativity, that he first took the usual gravity deflection and then added his own General Relativity deflection?

Betting with you might give the impression you had a legitimate claim. You're wasting my time.

CANGAS:



Betting with you might give the impression you had a legitimate claim. You're wasting my time.

JanesR:

You have had more than enough time to get one of your keepers to dig up a copy of Albert Einstein's book "Relativity" and explain to you what the author of the relativities publicly, and in fact, in a widely published book plainly admitted about his determination of the deflection of starlight as it closely passed the sun.

My claim, which you dismiss as so foolish as to be a waste of your valuable(?) time, is that Einstein said that he first determined the deflection according to the Newton gravity amount and then added his own General Relativity amount to sum to the amount that was said to be observed during the famous eclipse of 1919.

My claim is that he very plainly stated this in his book. You and your cohort Pete have repetedly vehemently stated that you (all) have never read such a thing and you claim that I am some kind of a delusional crank because of my claim.

In retort, I have claimed that you (all) are not serious scientists and have not even tried to study science for many years because you (all) have not bothered to read such a readily available and easy to read book.

You (all) have repetedly claimed that you have never read any kind of a statement like I have claimed, though you(all) represent yourselves as being of at least average intelligence and being literate.

You have one last chance to cover your a*ses by saying that you(all) somehow found the quote at the last minute by a miracle and that CANGAS is right again.

Otherwise very soon the complete accurate quote from the book will be posted here and my steamed colleagues will be able to enjoy all the embarrassment they CORRECTION a portion of the embarrassment they deserve.

"It may be added that, according to the theory, half of the deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification ("curvature") of space by the sun."

Relativity, Appendix III p127 in my hardbound copy.

Kind of depends on how you choose to read it. The take I get is that GR predicts two contributions to the deflection, a Newton like deflection away from the geodesic, and an equal deflection due to curvature of the geodesic. But that's me.

"Time and tide wait for no man." Quote by CANGAS.

Now we exactly quote Albert Einstein:

"(b) Deflection of Light by a Gravitational Field

In Section XXII it has been already mentioned that according to the general theory of relativity, a ray of light will experience a curvature of its path when passing through a gravitational field. As a result of this theory, we should expect that a ray of light which is passing close to a heavenly body would be deviated towards the latter. For a ray of light which passes the sun at a distance of (delta) sun-radii from its centre, the angle of deflection (a) should amount to a=1.7 seconds of arc /(delta).

It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half is produced by the geometrical modification ("curvature") of space caused by the sun."

Just in case some (I don't know who that could be) body is dumb enough to not get what Albert Einstein himself wrote, I will write it again in italics:

"HALF OF THIS DEFLECTION IS PRODUCED BY THE NEWTONIAN FIELD OF ATTRACTION , and the other half is produced by the geometrical modification (curvature) of space caused by the sun."

As soon as either Pete or JamesR replies with some kind of lame brained attack on my character or intelligence, again, I will provide the exact page number, Library of Congress catalog number, etc., etc., so that everyone who is reading this may determine for themself who is a serious scientist and who is a diletante.

Well done, Master of reading century old texts! See, that wasn't so hard, was it? I'm hoping that extracting future citations for your claims won't be such an onerous task.
Next time, perhaps you could save us a little more time and provide a link (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0114565/content.php?id=297)?

In light of the reference which was so kindly provided in order for James and I not to have to reread the entire text, your claim...
... that Einstein said that he first determined the deflection according to the Newton gravity amount and then added his own General Relativity amount [and] that he very plainly stated this in his book.
Is unfortunately off the mark.
...according to the theory,...
The General Theory of Relativity, nothing less.
...half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun,...
So the General Theory includes the Newtonian field of deflection...
...and the other half by the geometrical modification (“curvature”) of space caused by the sun.
...plus extra. The details of the calculation would be interesting, and necessary in order to determine whether any "double-dipping" is involved.

Unfortunately neither you nor I are capable of performing that calculation.

While you're on a roll, perhaps you'd like to produce some support for some of your other claims? I'm interested in the 1908 Army research you mentioned.

CANGAS:

Half the battle is understanding what you read.

It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half is produced by the geometrical modification ("curvature") of space caused by the sun.

In other words, if you take the result derived from general relativity, you can separate it into two parts. One part is the part you would derive if you used the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun. The other part cannot be produced using Newtonian mechanics and gravity, but comes only from general relativity.

Your statement that Einstein started with the Newtonian result and then tacked on an extra bit (doubling the deflection) is false, as I pointed out before.

I can't stand the suspense any longer. I just know in my knower that either JamesR or Pete or both will or have already admitted that they have been playing a long standing joke on me and all of you to the tune that they have been claiming in posts too numerous to number that they cannot find and say that it is nonexistant, that Albert Einstein said that he calculated the deflection of starlight going past the sun by first figuring for Newton gravity and then adding an equal amount of deflection for his General Relativity theory. But anyway I am admitting exactly where I got my correct information.

I have, roughly 24 hours ago posted the exact quotation taken from Albert Einstein's book, which I have on multiple times referenced to these mavens of science exactitude. They were invited for one last time to pick up the small book and, implied, to get an associate who was literate, or perhaps a seeing eye dog, to read the book to them, since they seem to have an overwhelming barrier against their actually reading a science book.

My source, obtained yesterday from a nearby public library, is:

Relativity
The Special and General Theory
by Albert Einstein
Crown Publishers, Inc., One Park Avenue, New York, N. Y.
copyright 1961 by the estate of Albert Einstein
ISBN: 0-517-029618 clo
ISBN: 0-517-025302 pbk
Chapter: Appendix III
Page: 126
Verse: 1 through 18.

While you're on a roll, perhaps you'd like to produce some support for some of your other claims? I'm interested in the 1908 Army research you mentioned.

If you were even 10 percent of the relativity expert that you enjoy posing to be, you would already be aware of the background and result of the 1908 study. It is in easily found public record. Perhaps for the first time in these forums you'd like to do your own homework when you dispute someone who is clearly correct.

CANGAS:

Half the battle is understanding what you read.



In other words, if you take the result derived from general relativity, you can separate it into two parts. One part is the part you would derive if you used the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun. The other part cannot be produced using Newtonian mechanics and gravity, but comes only from general relativity.

Your statement that Einstein started with the Newtonian result and then tacked on an extra bit (doubling the deflection) is false, as I pointed out before.


Your statement denying that Einstein started with the Newton result and added an extra amount which doubled the deflection is in perfect contradiction with Einstein's own words.

Anyone able to go to a public library and read my reference will see plainly that I have correctly presented this matter and will see that you have bent over backwards to tell about in a way that is opposite of the truth.

I've never claimed expertise in relativity, special or general. If you perceive me as an expert, that's a fault in your perception.
If you were even 10 percent of the relativity expert that you enjoy posing to be, you would already be aware of the background and result of the 1908 study. It is in easily found public record.
You made the claim, CANGAS. You show the evidence. That's how it works.
That's what "supporting your claims" means... it doesn't mean posting unsubstantiated assertions and expecting others to jump up and track it down for you.

While you have Relativity handy, perhaps you'd like to track down your other outstanding claims:

You must have never read a text from anyone's hand in your entire life, about Relativity, for you to say that you are not aware that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity. Einstein said it, Bergmann said it, Bertrand Russel said it, Antoon Lorentz said it, and the author of any Relativity text I have ever read said it.

Bullshit.

Perception of light by an observer is used extensively in relativity exercises as the fastest possible means of gathering information, but it is not "the fundamental principle". It also doesn't imply that "that raw observation is the definition of reality", as you seem to think.

Put up or shut up, CANGAS.
Find a quote from any relativity text that states that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity.
Find a quote from any relativity text that states that raw observation is the definition of reality.


And don't forget this one:
Highly regarded professional scientists have seriously proposed time machines based on exactly the same absurd mis thinking that I expressed in my infamous clock and mirror post.

Your statement denying that Einstein started with the Newton result and added an extra amount which doubled the deflection is in perfect contradiction with Einstein's own words.

Anyone able to go to a public library and read my reference will see plainly that I have correctly presented this matter and will see that you have bent over backwards to tell about in a way that is opposite of the truth.
Anyone able to click a link (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0114565/content.php?id=297) can certainly judge for themselves.

Your statement denying that Einstein started with the Newton result and added an extra amount which doubled the deflection is in perfect contradiction with Einstein's own words.

No.

My statements began some time ago when I stated that Einstein had plainly stated that he had first calculated the Newton gravity bending of starlight and then added an additional amount based on General Relativity, and relativity experts had publicly wonderec why Einstein had double dipped.

JamesR expressed total ignorance that Einstein had ever said such a thing.

In recent days I have posted an exact quote from Einstein's own book, and provided exact citation of all necessary details to enable anyone with functional intelligence and reading ability to obtain and read such quote.

Anyone can read the book as cited and see for themself whether I have properly presented this matter, or, whether sock puppets Pete and JamesR are bending over backwards to try to obscure their own ineptness.

Einstein said no such thing.

P.S. You might want to look up the term "sock puppet". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Einstein said no such thing.


My exact quote, straight from Einstein's own book, is at the top of this page. My citation, enabling anyone who is not too lazy to do so, to obtain the book and read it for themself, is also on this page.

Are you really blind or totally lacking reading ability? I am not an unnecessarily cruel man and so apologize to you if I have belittled your reading habits when in fact you are not able to read a book.

You obviously didn't read my response to your post of the quote.

Are you really blind or totally lacking reading ability?

You obviously didn't read my response to your post of the quote.

Are you really blind or totally lacking reading ability?

I have vision which is above average.

I have reading ability and habits which are above average.

What part of the exact quote of Albert Einstein, which you have on multiple occaisions denied that he uttered, is it that you do not have enough reading ability, intelligence, courage, or whatever, to admit that he said it?

But I see that you have failed to understand my question to you, which does not surprise me: are you blind or otherwise lacking reading ability?

I have answered two of your questions. Do you have enough courtesy to answer this one of mine?

Einstein plainly stated that he double dipped in predicting the starlight experiment. You have claimed that not only did he not say such a thing, but his calculations do not reflect such a thing. I think it is time for you to put up or shut up and show us your logical and mathematical proofs of his correctness.

I give you a subtle hint: whatever his equation(s) predict about gravitational bending of starlight through a gravitational field must also hold true for the path of any MASSIVE body also. So you must defend your idol's equations by showing to us how his equations predict twice the amount of gravitational effect upon light and also twice the amount of gravitational effect every MASSIVE body.

The ball is in your court. You may do your usual act of insult or trying to palm off the work upon someone else, but I will have nothing more to do with your (expletive deleted).

I have vision which is above average.

I have reading ability and habits which are above average.

It seems not, since you don't understand what you read.

Einstein plainly stated that he double dipped in predicting the starlight experiment.

No. He said that half of the deflection predicted using general relativity could be predicted using Newtonian physics.

That is not the same thing as what you have claimed. Understand?

You have claimed that not only did he not say such a thing, but his calculations do not reflect such a thing. I think it is time for you to put up or shut up and show us your logical and mathematical proofs of his correctness.

I can't hope to teach you general relativity here. Get a book and read up on it. The deflection of light by massive bodies is included in all introductory textbooks on general relativity.

I give you a subtle hint: whatever his equation(s) predict about gravitational bending of starlight through a gravitational field must also hold true for the path of any MASSIVE body also.

No. Massive bodies do not move at the speed of light.