@Hak

It is not constants, such as h, that Nature seeks to preserve, these constants being the result of observation but are not principles.

It is the conservation of energy that imposes the change of frequency.

When a body falls to earth, it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy.

But when a photon falls to earth, it cannot gain kinetic energy since it cannot exceed c. The energy it gains increases its frequency ν (the blue shift you are

talking about), and as E=h.ν, the energy is exactly conserved.

Note that the conservation of energy comes from the mathematical formalism, so the non-conservation, you will never get it from the equations.

The laws of physics are mathematics, and in the equations of these mathematics, the energy is conserved because it is what we have always observed.

So as long as there is no contrary observation, the known laws of physics will remain as they are, implying this conservation in the equations. If you could use

the equations of physics against it, its mathematical coherence would be at fault, and this would have been seen for a long time. So the way to FE is only through

anomalous observations, not through manipulation of the physics equations (which does not prevent using them to go beyond, or simply to check that an observation

is not anomalous).

Our views are much closer than you think.

The point I am making is that while energy is indeed conserved in the net scope, it can *appear* to be violated, with energy appearing to be being gained/lost depending on the reference frame it's viewed from. Not because the energy is changing, but because the frame-of-reference is changing.

Let me pose a thought experiment and you can correct me at any point. Note: this is no 'proof' of anything here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page conceptually.

We have 2 earth-like planets. One like ours, in 'normal space', and the other very close to a black hole, in 'dense' space. Lets assume for the thought-experiment that both have technology to beam energy via photons with no divergence at high efficiency over vast distance.

Planet A sends 10 joules of energy towards planet B. On its way, it experiences relativistic lensing effects due to special relativity presented by the black hole.

Planet B receives the photons, but because their planet is in a different reference frame, they observe a different amount of energy received than what Planet A had sent.

From the POV of Planet A, the photons appear to

*lose* energy, as they redshift by lets say a factor of 10. From POV of Planet A, only 1 joule is received at the receiving station.

From the POV of Planet B, the photons appear to

*gain* energy, as they blueshift by the same factor. From POV of Planet B, 100 joules are received.

So the packet of energy does not change in any way, only the reference frame it is viewed from. Conservation is still maintained despite the *apparent* break in symmetry.

Would you agree with this premise?

Stated differently, since E=HV is sacrosanct, then an observed redshift/blueshift would

*appear* to be violating conservation when viewed from stationary reference frame, even though energy is not

*really* being created/destroyed.

Would you find that to be an accurate statement?

"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."