I think you failed to express the main point of the article, which is the use of the equivalence principle to compare the observer who is free-falling, thus seeing a straight beam, and the one in the rocket, who is accelerating to stand in the same position, and is thus on a non-geodesic path and sees the beam bending.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank You for your feedback! I hoped that it would have been more enjoyable to focus on this techniques role in supporting the concept.
Nevertheless, looking back I agree that I failed to do justice to the equivalence principle. After presenting the second half of the approximation methods, I will happily dedicate an article to the topic!
I guess if you made clearer what the two references frames are, it would be ok, even without mentioning the equivalence principle at that point. In any case, I enjoyed the approach, and it is funny that using only newtonian physics it is possible to arrive qualitatively at the same expression for the angle deviation for small masses.