Gravity is a strange thing, because as far as I can intuit, it is not constant (even though classical Newtonian Mechanics tells us it is, and even has a constant for it, G) -- but as far as I can intuit, Gravity is relative to both scale and wavelength...
That is, it will bend different electromagnetic wavelengths differently, like a Prism...
To understand this, consider smaller attractive phenomena, for example, magnetism, and electrostatic attraction (you rub a balloon, it "sticks" to surfaces). Those are both attractive phenomena similar to Gravity, just at much smaller scales.
If you have a water wave pool, there are ways to get objects in the water to be attracted or repulsed, via different wave forms.
In fact, maybe this is the problem. We're calling Gravity "Gravity", rather than "attractive/acceleration force at large scale (which again is a law of the squares phenomena, that is, it drops off as the square of the distance, but the distances involved in gravity are very large, planetary sized (or larger) in effect).
So you're right -- it wouldn't hold for light, but perhaps there are smaller analogous, attractive phenomena, that it would hold up for.
And perhaps there are smaller in scale, yet analogous phenomena to light -- like sound or vibration.
See this is the problem in physics... we're calling PRINCIPLES (in this case, the attractive principle) by different names... Gravity, Magnetism, Electrostatic, Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, etc.).
Every single thing, and every single principle in the Universe -- has analogues of it at different SCALES.
The knowledge of these principles (which can be deduced by simple observation "what is the unifying principle behind these phenomena?") should come before math equations, especially those with constants, BEFORE we make a serious inquiry into physics.
We should ask HOW something would be possible -- rather than trying to figure out WHY (based on current knowledge) it is (or seems) impossible... then we'll start making great strides in physics...
Gravity and electromagnetism are basically the same from a mathematical perspective if you’re just looking at the forces produced: they’re both inverse square, proportional to some intrinsic property of the objects involved. The main differences are the constant in front (gravity is kind of wimpy) and the fact that “electrical mass” can be negative and its force has a minus sign in front. The only reason you see gravity at large scales is that charges mostly cancel out at larger scales, while gravity cannot.
There is a difference though: a test-mass moving freely in a gravitational field does not experience that field (it feels the same as a test-mass in empty space). A test-charge moving freely in an electrical field however will experience an acceleration (it feels something is pulling on it).
I see where you’re coming from (with the naive formulation of the proportional charges/masses and inverse square law) but at relativistic and microscopic level they are very different (including, as another poster observed, the remarkable property that a test-mass accelerated by a gravitational field is unable to observe that field, which is a formulation of the famous Equivalence Principle).
That is, it will bend different electromagnetic wavelengths differently, like a Prism...
To understand this, consider smaller attractive phenomena, for example, magnetism, and electrostatic attraction (you rub a balloon, it "sticks" to surfaces). Those are both attractive phenomena similar to Gravity, just at much smaller scales.
If you have a water wave pool, there are ways to get objects in the water to be attracted or repulsed, via different wave forms.
In fact, maybe this is the problem. We're calling Gravity "Gravity", rather than "attractive/acceleration force at large scale (which again is a law of the squares phenomena, that is, it drops off as the square of the distance, but the distances involved in gravity are very large, planetary sized (or larger) in effect).
So you're right -- it wouldn't hold for light, but perhaps there are smaller analogous, attractive phenomena, that it would hold up for.
And perhaps there are smaller in scale, yet analogous phenomena to light -- like sound or vibration.
See this is the problem in physics... we're calling PRINCIPLES (in this case, the attractive principle) by different names... Gravity, Magnetism, Electrostatic, Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, etc.).
Every single thing, and every single principle in the Universe -- has analogues of it at different SCALES.
The knowledge of these principles (which can be deduced by simple observation "what is the unifying principle behind these phenomena?") should come before math equations, especially those with constants, BEFORE we make a serious inquiry into physics.
We should ask HOW something would be possible -- rather than trying to figure out WHY (based on current knowledge) it is (or seems) impossible... then we'll start making great strides in physics...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law