I was looking at some calculations of the deflection of light by the sun. However, there is something that I cannot understand. They usually express a relation $$r = \dfrac{p}{1+e\cos(\theta)} \qquad (\star) $$ as if it were massive, knowing that nothing in this expression depends on the mass (but it depends on the massive energy $\epsilon = E/m$).
Here's the "energy" conservation for a massless particle (it has the dimension of energy over a mass) : $$ \epsilon = \frac 1 2 c^2 - \frac \kappa r $$ with $\kappa = GM_s$, where $M_s$ denotes the sun's mass.
I believe that in this paper1, they assume that $(\star)$ holds:
A light ray, from a distant star, under the Sun’s gravitational force field describes the usual central force hyperbolic orbit.
So here's my problem: since $c$ is a constant, how can $\epsilon$ be a constant knowing that $r$ is not?
Warning: I choose to right as $e$ the eccentricity and $\epsilon$ the quantity conserved through the movement. However, in the paper I linked above, they denote $\epsilon$ the eccentricity!
1 D. S.L. Soares, "Newtonian gravitational deflection of light revisited", arXiv:physics/0508030.