If you were to be in a spaceship zooming through space near the speed of light, it would basically turn every star into a black hole or just get destroyed. They would move so fast from your frame of reference that they would reach the mass to go supernova and maybe turn into a black hole.
If you then decelarate to a low speed, relative to the stars of some galaxy, you would just find the remnants of these exploded stars and black holes everywhere, they would not go back to normal star status just because you have decreased their mass by slowing down.
This is an absurd situation and hence kinetic energy cannot contribute to gravity

>>16731342 (OP)
I don't have the theoretical physics background to answer your question, but I think I can simplify it. Not only do these stars appear to gain energy, but due to length contraction they should appear to gain density as well Will a star at the threshold of back hole density look like a black hole if you move towards it at a fraction of light speed? Because by this logic it doesn't even matter if kinetic energy contributes to gravity or not.
Interesting thread, hope someone with better knowledge of relativity can comment on this

>>16731342 (OP)
>>16731357
This ends up being more complicated than you'd expect.
In GR gravitation is the curvature, which does not change from a lorentz basis change (as it should be).
So what you need is to check the apparent curvature (given a frame) that the covariant derivative accounts for with the christopher symbols.
It turns out this is a pseudotensor.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy%E2%80%93momentum_pseudotensor#Landau%E2%80%93Lifshitz_pseudotensor
So from what I gather, and I would love for someone with better GR knowledge to chime in and correct me, it appears that kinematic relativity effects indeed do not affect gravity.
Someone with better GR knowledge help me figure this out, please.

I. LOVE. SLOP.

This is the most scientific thread in /sci/

>>16731602
>christopher symbols
Top kek

>>16732297
NOLAAAAAAAN