"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
...
Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
Physics:
1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
(No matter if it is circular motion or linear
motion. For circular motion the conservation
only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
for linear motion conservation exists relative to
every point in space);
2 - Conservation of Energy.

Now, energy is the time derivative of the
angular momentum, and that time is an
absolute time.

No, energy is the path integral of momentum. The energy is a function of
the observer's frame, so it clearly involves *nothing* absolute.

You are right. My mistake, sorry.
It is the other way around:
Momentum is the derivative of energy, or like you
said: "energy is the path integral of momentum".

For linear motion:
Momentum = d/dt Energy
m v = d/dt (1/2 m v^2)

For circular motion:
Angular momentum = d/dt Energy
I w = d/dt (1/2 I w^2)

You're also right about energy being frame dependent.
Nevertheless, for circular motion, in the given example,
I've clearly implied that the center of rotation is a
fixed point in space and it's the origin of the coordinates.
Hence, relative to the center of rotation, my argument
holds 100% :
"Angular momentum is the time derivative of energy
and that time is an absolute time."


How can the above two pillar stones of
Physics survive in view of time dilatation
(and time not being absolute after all)?

Because "absolute" is something artificially impressed by *human*
expectation.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve any Physical
problem without that "absolute fixed frame of reference".
You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
You need a paper for that, where you place an
absolute fixed frame of reference.


David A. Smith