It is very tempting to think as you do, but what really happens with the bullet moving north, - not is a accelerering bullet but a deceleration effect, - , the energy transfer to the bullet have a braking effect, seen from an overall perspective.
Evidently the temptation was too much for you to resist as that is what you even quoted me saying for your CBR frame. Again that you simply want to consider that frame more of "what really happens" doesn't eliminate what happens in other frames.
To what is that energy then converted ?
Well if it is a typical gun powder gun then chemical potential energy is coveted to kinetic energy by exerting forces between the bullet and the gun.
Well (true) kinetic energy is always accompanied by proportional mass increase, - and if (true) kinetic energy is brought to decelerate, -then relativistic mass will be released, which is the same as a gravitational wave / radiation.
So the energy you used to slow a true moving object, is used to deduct the relativistic mass of the object ..
Again, relativistic mass is frame dependent. Since the kinetic energy and forces also act on the gun how does its relativistic mass change and in what frame(s)?
Hint: Recoil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
Also if the energy change is released as gravitational waves as you claim. Then the bullet doesn't retain that energy state and reverts to its original state. You can't have it both ways the change in energy retained by the bullet and at the same time released elsewhere.
We don’t know what overall perspective really is, in the same way as a fish don’t know what a jumbo jet is. But we will need such theoretical language in the future.
As you have been the only one asserting an "overall perspective" you're the only one who suffers the consequences of you claiming you don't know what it is. I, at least for one, do thank you for admitting you don't know what you're talking about when you assert an "overall perspective".
Soon you will have to give up this collective obsession.
Soon you will also have to give up this collective obsession.
Your the only one here obviously obsessed and evidently just with an "overall perspective" even you assert you don't know what it really is.
The reason for this confusion you and the rest of the world is victim for, - is that it never was considered (theoretical) the only way matter can involve / entangled with the (elastic) property of space..
Once again as you haven't quantified or identified any "(elastic) property of space" the confusion remains entirely yours. Heck I've even tried helping you in that regard by giving you the formulaic basis of bulk elastic properties.
Here it is again...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus
You have much work to do.
- True kinetic energy is “pushing” matter to entangle stronger with space.
- Space is always part of the relativistic transformation process.
If you have no clue at all, - how matter and space possible can be connected, you can easy end up fare out on Jens Peter Jensen’s ploughed fields, - where both vultures and crows long ago have reversed
Don’t forget that.
Don't forget it yourself and actually apply it to yourself. Most everyone here is already aware of this and hence trying to provide you at least a clue. Again if you want to assert "the (elastic) property of space" then that is probably where you should start, by trying to define and quantify such properties. However, don't forget that space time has well defined electromagnetic properties and as the bulk properties of materials are a result of their electromagnetic properties. You may want to explore that relation. Again you have much work to do and I recommend you concentrate on that rather than just the pretense.
