Well, Fermat, the explanation to Why a star/sun a million times heavier than our sun, or any star for that matter produces light with the same energy factors ( I will assume that terms like energy factors, excelleration, etc. are lawyerese for frequency/wavelength and acceleration) already exists.
Someone didn't do their reasearch correctly now, did they? And you can be acused (with enormous available proof) that you are actually suborning perjury by your statements, and in the court of science, this makes you guilty of gross ignorance (stupidity in short, since you actually meddled into the matter pretending to know the field), even though your ignorance may be unwillful.
The answer to the question whose answer you claim to be the only one to hold is rouhly a century old, and is called general covariance (homogeneity and isotropy can be derived therefrom). A fella, Einstein, discovered it long ago. And to the best of our observational knowledge, it works.
Furthermore, at the scale of our solar system, we know that there is no variation of the speed of light, and that the mechanism you propose is "null and void". As for the redshift, that has already been explained a century and a half ago, so once again, you are a bit late.
Despite your insensitivity to arguments (you must be a corporate lawyer) you might want to consult the scientific literature from the last hundred years. It is not difficult to do so, since I suppose you are aware that the concept of books and articles has been successfully applied to science too.
And if you are retired, you also have a lot of time to dedicate to such a study, although you seem to lack the wisdom and/or maturity of such an undertaking.In science open mindedness to arguments (or at least to cogent ones) is still the fashion, you know?
