Dear Pentchov,
may be your high rating is a little bit too early.
First the bad news.
As you know I am convinced of a Dual Parametrization of c, which means, the constancy of the speed of light c is given twice and not once, as it is still claimed by special relativity.
It is just the existence of this hidden second face of c that makes most physicists (not you) erronuously believe, that the speed of light c is absolutely valid.
And clearly, if the basic equation c = 1 is repeatedly confirmed under different circumstances you might almost unavoidably come to this conclusion. Given two faces of c, equally parametrized in the same way, that is, c = 1, it might be difficult to recognize the specific cases in which this elementary equation (the constancy of the speed of light) does not hold.
To summarize this situation, we could say, the speed of light is more constant than you believe, but it is at the same time less constant than the community believes.
And now the good news. There are parts of the universe, in which the speed of light c is probably not a constant and in which your thesis - a shift in frequency implies shift in speed of light - might be meaningful.
Look at the paper: Amplified Doppler Shift observed in diffraction images as function of the COBE Ether Drift Direction.
According to the physicist R.A. Augusto et al. the main objective of this paper is to present experimental results on an --one-way light path-- laser diffraction experiment mounted in the shell of the TUPI muon telescope and that shows clearly that the speed of light depends on the propagation direction. The effect is observed as a amplified Doppler shift in the diffraction images as function of the laser beam alignment relative to the Earths velocity vector. It shows that the speed of light is not a constant, but it depends on direction and polarization.
I think you are touching this part of the universe. Here something is happening, that is described by the scientific community - as you always claiming - wrongly or at least unsufficiently.
It is a highly sensitive point regarding special relativity comparable to the Michelson-Morley experiment. I agree with you most physicists might think they are right, but they are fooled by Nature.
As the internal machinery of the universe is not visible in all parts as we usually expect, just this fact makes it difficult to decide between the main stream view and your view. Both views have good reasons to hold their position, but the answer lies somewhere in between the two.
However, your work helps me a lot to clarify some positions of my own work. Consequently, your paper and your instinct serves a top rating.
Kind Regards
Helmut