I remember this.
@HansH only actually, coz I know him a bit for a while.
I see that you have also grabbed the two peaks of PP again, sigh

.
But that's also just a diagram, not a representation of an actual geodesic. Those peaks have no physical meaning whatsoever, as explained by Prof. Emeritus Dale Gray at the time.
Why this factor of 2 for light with respect to a Newtonian calculation or with regard to the equivalence principle alone has been explained as well (but I got to admit it was a chaotic mess on that forum with countless topics about it in the end .. rediculous, sometimes literally ROFL), but a short repetition:
In Einstein's 1911 calculation, he only used the time component (basically what we now call gravitational time dilation) and that's all the equivalence principle includes. It concerns an acceleration, so an artificial uniform gravitational field is "created", just like with rotation (centrifuge), but no actual gravitational field as in "curved space-time" (see that video once again, where those guys about "time dilation causes gravity or gravitational attraction", which is complete nonsense, are corrected a little bit).
In 1915 he realized (just in time) that there also had to be a spatial component (later elaborated into several components that make up the metric, so no solution like Schwarzschild did exist yet) again using Huygens principle.
The crux is that for light this component contributes as much to the "deflection" as the time component. Because light in vacuum gives a "null-like separation". So in a Minkowski diagram it always goes with 45°. Locally curved spacetime is always just Euclidean so you can always use that Minkowski diagram locally.
And a very easy analogue is that when with slow movements (in the Newtonian limit) the world lines in such a diagram run almost vertically along the time axis light always with 45°, if you roll this up then the world line of a slow movement can be bent almost exclusively in the time direction (gravitational time dilation), while that of light (in vacuum) is bent just as much in the time direction as in the spatial direction.
Of course this is an analogue. I could give you the full explanation again, but to be honest, I think a textbook GR will be to much of a struggle. But I remember giving you "Relativity Visualised" and with the free (mathematical) elaboration "Epstein explains Einstein" by Eckstein (Dreistein) you'll at least have some solid understanding of basic relativity. Instead of, I'm sorry to say specially since it's only logical when you been around that WF too long, but instead of sort of fantasizing uhm trying to visualise the impossible in some pre-relativity way. Not sure how to say it, but I wanted to react in that other topic and I got to agree that you're trying to build a skyscraper starting at the 100th floor or learning how to swim by immediately jumping in the middle of the ocean. And trying to solve a 1000 pieces puzzle while only having 10 random pieces in your possession. .. Your thoughts about lots of physics, mostly relativity in cosmology, go in all directions but your lost it seems. Imho you need good guidance so not on that WF. (That's very obvious to me at least.)
(Written in Dutch and used Google translate, but I feel like there are not too many language errors.)
Hope this helps a little.