what he is saying, is this does not a aircraft make.
want to make something fly? grab something and throw it backwards… mainly air.
in space want to push? throw something backwards. (rocket exhaust?) (Helicon antenna plasma/wakefield acceleration?)
Then why say centripedal and centrigual force if it means nothing?So helicopters don’t move in a circular path as they fly.You are saying obvious things.That don’t mean my idea wont work.
Ofcoarse something is going to have to be emitted in order for it to fly.Still centripedal force can act on it
to make it go in a circular path.Then increasing the forward velocity will cause it to go in a greater circular path.
I remember reading something recently where there’s a theory that dark matter is spread pretty much everywhere. However it doesn’t interact with normal matter because of the tightly bound and closed field lines associated with it.
However this theory also postulates that in a particular case, if the closed loop fields of dark matter can be aligned, then they will react to moving magnetic fields. So if you were to have something that could produce a rotating magnetic field, it could bring these particles into alignment. Then it should be possible to sweep a linear magnetic field across it, and push back the particles of dark matter.
Thing is, if there’s anything to this, it might be possible to accelerate dark matter with things like magnetrons and solenoids.
So why would that be of interest? Dark matter doesn’t react with regular matter, what would be the point? However the thing is, when dark matter is able to be pushed by a magnetic field, the reaction force of that push is carried back across the magnetic field. (Much like how the field generated by some coils on a stator has pushback on a rotor in an electric motor.) Basically it’s Newton’s 3rd law in play.
Curiously enough, if a dark matter drive can be developed it means you have a freely available working frictionless reaction mass that you don’t have to carry with you that can be used as a propellant with nothing more than a very specialized magnetic accelerator. (Maybe this is what Star Trek refers to as impulse drive?)
There’s also some theory of gravity variant involving virtual particle pairs that form and immediately annihilate. Thing is, dark matter can supposedly displace pair formation, and in this theory the effect of that is gravity. So rather than just some kind of wierd jet, another effect of being able to move and concentrate dark matter off to one side of a spaceship may be a warp field. And that just might be the loophole needed for FTL drive.
Helicopters fly because the blades are rotating wings, (wings turn drag into lift)
The momentum of the blades does produce gyroscope effects,
Ok, so you have attached a rope to a rocket to make it move in a circular path. Why would this allow you to reach the speed of light?
Particle accelerators are circular. The outcomes are congruent with Einsteins’ equations. Why should anyone buy a simulation when the theory is physically tested in a lab?
It does not require a rope.A car going around in a circular path is centripetal right.I mean produces centripetal force.
EDIT: I misunderstood your interpretation, yes it does. But it doesn’t influence it in the way you think. The car is only going in the circular path because of the centripetal force.
A car moving in a circular path produces centripetal force.Here is a picture.
Not necessarily a rope, but something that forces it to move in a circle (e.g. in a car that would be the wheels).
You still need to explain why this contraption would be allowed to reach the speed of light.
If you change the object to a charged particle, and use electric/magnetic fields to make it accelerate in a spiral, you essentially have made a cyclotron (or synchrotron if you are fancy enough) particle accelerator. This is nothing new, as these types of particle accelerators are used all over the world (even in teaching labs), and it’s well known that the particles in them behave in a relativistic way.
I believe what I made in the blender game engine.And I won’t question it.
Ignorance is bliss
Funny reading.
Be aware the BGE uses the Bullet Physics Engine. This engine (as other Physics Engines) is designed to produce “plausible” results in nearly realtime (in the BGE it is supposed to create entertaining results a it is a game engine).
Want examples?
How much force do you need to apply to break a plane?
How much force do you need to move a static cube?
Why I’m able to drop a sphere on a plane and the sphere jumps higher each time (and I do not add force to it or the plane)?
It uses a simplified physics model that can run fast.
You can’t proof any real world thing with the BGE. You can’t even proof real world facts with any other Physics model … because it is a model. A model is an abstraction made by humans as helper to understand how the real world works. It does not mean the model is correct. Scientists know about that. Therefore models will be adjusted to fit latest discoveries. As models are abstractions they only cover a subset of aspects. These aspects might be covered with quite a good precision … other aspects are simplified or not even present.
I have no clue about centripetal/centrifugal/centipede forces but I know … the Physics engine of the BGE is not precise enough to transfer it’s results to real world. … it might … by accident ;).
Silly me that I post in this thread.
Btw. I believe in the BGE too
… as long it remains in the BGE.
(what is the speed of light in the BGE?)
Anyway, physics are all looking for the same thing. Some call it God, for physics it is a unified theory of all and everything, and it is the single formula that allows to undertstand, calculate and foresee any phenomenon in the universe. If they ever get to it, you can put it in a physics engine and have a simulated engine that can apply to reality 
With a terrible Framerate*
Approximation is faster then simulation in most instances.
Without being too blunt about it why are you folk even humouring such drivel? Blender as a theoretical physics laboratory? Oh, come on people give me a break ! LOL
I get the impression that he’s pretty young yet, so he may not know all that much on how the physics simulations in 3D programs can only go as far as what’s supported in the code (theoretical physics cannot work in these cases because a good implementation usually limits you to what is known).
When I was young, I had my share of cornball theories as well, give it a few years and most people like that will come to their senses 
Ok, maybe Im being a llittle techy.
By the way did I tell you guys about my perpetual motion machine I designed in Blender? I make a cube go up and down in an animation and loop the animation and guess what ? It just keeps on going and going! I left my machine on for a month and the cube was still going. Enstein? Newton? bah humbug! They are just old geezers. They didnt have computers !
Ok, how did you power the computer?
Well you can try and use the slingshot effect of a galaxy to reach a maximum speed “FTL style” but I think that you would be seriously in very, very big trouble when it comes to braking ? From A to B ?
After how do the law of physics a we know them work in between galaxies ? that is another question…