You seem to have missed the part about stopping to drop each stone.
I did, yes.
Applying the notion of increased energy with increased speed to light, you are accepting that the speed of light is not constant
What? No! And this isn't "me", this is physics as we know them. I am not the one claiming that light speed is constant and that its energy level is increased with increased frequency, all of physics is. And, I would point out, this has been proven as much as anything can be. This is
We accept that light doesn’t acquire or lose energy due to the motion of the source.
Absolutely false. Nobody accepts that. Just the opposite is true. If you shine a flashlight directly forward as you move forward at half the speed of light the light coming out of the flashlight does not travel at 1 1/2 times the speed of light, it travels at the speed of light. But you must
account for the energy you are adding to the light. You cannot create nor destroy energy, so that motion energy doesn't just disappear. It changes the light's frequency, putting the light at a higher energy level.
Once the wave leaves the source, there is no mechanism to impart additional energy into it.
That's true once it leaves the source
. But the motion of the source imparts energy as
it leaves the source.
We must consider that each wave, each “ping”, each energy transfer is a single disturbance, not a series of disturbances. Thus there is no frequency associated with a single wave; frequency requires a series of waves.
I think I see where you're going wrong here. Based on what you're saying here you're looking at a wave in water and a wave in physics being the same. What you're saying here is true of a single wave in water, but it is not true of a wave in physics. In physics a wave is one entire progression from median to upper peak to median to lower peak and finally back to median. (You can actually measure from any points that included all of that, but for simplicity it's usually shown like that and that's how we'll discuss it, again, for simplicity.) A wave in water is only half what a wave in physics is, the upper peak. There is a corresponding lower peak behind the wave, but it's not an equal height from the median (undisturbed surface of the water) because matter and energy bear little behavioral similarities. In physics the upper and lower peaks of a naturally occurring wave are equidistant from the median. (We can fudge that with electrical waves as much as we want, but it takes some serious interference on our part.)
Because a wave in physics is at least one entire progression every wave in physics has a frequency, which is calculated from that wave’s “wavelength”. The wavelength is the measurement of exactly one entire progression. It is the physical length of one iteration of that wave. From that wavelength we can calculate the frequency, and we can do that because we know the speed it is traveling. The formula to calculate frequency from wavelength actually uses the speed of light in the calculation.
Now this is important, every single photon has its own frequency. A photon is nothing like a pebble and a pond. That’s where your analogy went so wrong. The photon has a wavelength and, thus, a frequency as it travels. The photon travels as both a particle and a wave. It is, itself, the wave. And it’s nothing like a wave traveling through the medium of water. Space only acts as a medium in aether theory, which is garbage. You need to get aether theory out of your head altogether. Everything about it needs to go. A theory has to be really bad to be tossed out entirely instead of instead being modified to fit new understanding.
But all of that is irrelevant. We’re arguing facts here. The speed of light IS constant. This has been measured and proved and re-proved. This is not up for debate. This is not questioned. This just IS and will remain so until some observation says otherwise. You’re not going to change that with any theory or proposition or argument. The speed of light is constant, the end…until you can produce an experiment or some other observation which says otherwise. This is as solid and grounded a scientific fact as it gets. I cannot stress enough how wrong you are if you think you have any thought whatsoever capable of challenging this. You don’t. This is absolute, solid, known, undeniable, unquestionable physics until you can show that it’s not with observational data. You’re sure as hell not going to change that by digging through the trash bin of physics to try to revive aether theory.