Comments on: Newton’s Laws Explained With Lego

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:41:12 +0000

Naomi, someone would be able to answer your question if it were written a little more clearly. As it stands, I cannot make head nor tail of what you’re trying to say.

By: naomi

naomi — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:08:03 +0000

what are yhu guys tlkn bout??/!!!!!! js playn i was thinkn to what will happn if we dont have gravity would they think of something else wat or where would we be now without it i think we might of created something or would we?????????????? lolx

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:55:46 +0000

@Dennis It’s odd that you say gravity is a law and that it cannot be changed…well isn’t there a certain 20th Century physicist who would beg to differ and suggested that gravity is little more than a distortion of the spacetime continuum due to the presence of mass? Maybe I misunderstood what you were alluding to, and yes, the data still looks the same at the levels we observe in our everyday lives.

By: Dennis Murray

Dennis Murray — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:49:15 +0000

The operating fields of gravity is to direct an object to a equal zero point of effect, or a notable (none) effect. Gravity is a Law, and cannot be changed, but its established fields of operation can be manipulated.
Just image gravity as the subject and under this subject are three categories. Each of these categories are a sub-operating field, and together they produce the end-result, which are expressed by Newton, and your video.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:53:57 +0000

I’d love to find some more Lego animations explaining scientific principles, anyone care to mock up a Lego train with a flashlight and a miniature Einstein figure to do relativity?

By: mark

mark — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:41:28 +0000

Awesome – definitely blogroll-worthy. : )

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:28:22 +0000

Coming soon Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in Meccano! (I wish)

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:10:27 +0000

Oh, by the way, Newton postulated the existence of gravity not because an apple fell on his head, but because he observed a comet and realised it was somehow being swung around behind the sun.

By: Zach Macias

Zach Macias — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:38:22 +0000

Hey everyone! This is Zach M., the creator of the video.

I’m glad you liked the movie, and I am aware of a few errors in my science. But nonetheless, I’m still glad you enjoyed it!

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:56:36 +0000

That’s an interesting perspective Andrew. perhaps important to mention that matter and energy are equivalent, so it’s not just materials that you’re talking about interacting with time, but energy too. The only other problem is that time itself doesn’t exist within the framework of relativistic theory. We have spacetime, of course, and in classical mechanics space appears to be a three-dimensional framework within which objects move and energy flows, time then seems independent of mechanical motion. But relativity tells us that time is not distinct from space, it’s just that we perceive it different, the 3D nature of flat people in flatland is a good analogy.