Ghideon

If you want to avoid FTL technology you could let the black hole have an extremely high relative velocity seen from Apollos. While Joes are in black hole orbit they, and the black hole gets close enough to Apollos to make the use of a slower than light speed mission plausible to the reader.

Snakes?

I do not know enough about the various worm hole variants in current models to have an opinion. But in fiction the time travel possibility could be left out. Personal opinions: I think it sounds like a god idea. Basing the introduction on less exotic things may make the narrative look more scientifically plausible*, even if narrative is still purely fiction. It may also help build a plausible start for the game. If Apollos have not yet mastered the wormhole technology then there is more room for needing the Joes help. Unless crucial for the plot I would try to not use FTL in the opening. Someone capable of faster than light travel has limited need for developing a wormhole. *) plausible to the player in the game universe, not necessarily so in mainstream science.

If Apollos DO why bother with the Joes when they could handle issues in simpler ways as outlined above? And you can have a fiction universe with wormhole technology without introducing time travel technology. If you must have a wormhole that acts as a vacuum cleaner to fetch the Joes space craft: why not let Joes travel in cryo on their regular route at slow speed? Let them be delayed or whatever. Year 4010 Apollos need to get the Joes spacecraft. Apollos open a wormhole to fetch the Joes. No need to open a wormhole to another time, with all the issues that implies, just a wormhole to a remote location. Then use the supernova idea to delay Joes traveling through the wormhole. -The AI on the automated Apollo rescue ship has to spend some additional time decrypting 1000+ year old military grade security systems on Joes ship? -Earlier malfunctions on Joes ship need repair to cope with the acceleration to leave orbit? Just present what kind of events that would fit a narrative and from there we can outline some "scientific looking" scenario that sound plausible enough to an average player. It depends. This is fiction, you can state any appropriate time and have a reason for the black hole and Joes to be at that specific location that the narrative requires.

I think Migl already answered that. What evidence? Sorry @MigL, couldn't resist posting a situation where it is reasonable to treat infinity as the next number . In a typical Java implementation: System.out.println(Math.nextUp(Float.MAX_VALUE)); />Infinity But my example has no implications on mathematics, it's just useful to be aware of in some situations. For instance when trying to explain bugs to stake holders that have no limited mathematical training.

Ok But then the narrative and gameplay would not suffer from removing the time travel and introducing some other way? See my suggestion above, it allows for the same fiction but without time travel paradoxes. Worm holes opening to the past opens too may possibilities in my opinion. NPCs * having such powerful options but not using them makes them look kind of stupid. I think it is easier to remove time travel than it is to invent a set of golden rules that actually works and are logical. Assume "wormhole to the past" exists as in the game narrative. If I had such a device (in a game) I would: 1: Create a store room with useful things like one weapon, food, and medical stuff. Later, when I need things from the store room I do not get it from the store room directly, I fetch it from the store room via the wormhole to the past. That gives me endless resources. 2: Get help from the future. Before making a crucial decision I would put a note with each option in my desk. Then watch the wormhole, opening from the future, remove the notes containing the bad decisions. Then I would follow the decision on the one remaining note. The above points are just quick though experiments what the worm hole to the past, in a game, could allow. I would personally try to change the narrative to use some other means to get to the results needed. The point I try to make is that a narrative that allows the reader to think about such possibilities will look more like a universe ruled by magic** than ruled by science. *) Non player characters **) In works of fiction I have nothing against that. But in this case it introduces problems that Pmfr seems to want to avoid.

If vehicles register at an entry point and pay at an exit you can charge vehicles by the distance traveled between entry and exit.

I gave this a second thought. If the goal is to reduce the non-scientific parts you could try a narrative that is more compatible with current cosmological models. I'll have to do some assumptions and then present the scenario. Assumptions: -The time travel and wormhole combination is not crucial for the plot. -Wormholes may be used in other parts of the game -Joes are in space 2050 -In year 4010 the Apollos need to contact the Joes as they were in 2050. -There should be an unexpected delay that Apollos did not intend Below is a sketchy outline of a fiction narrative that could be used as inspiration. If you find it useful we could add details and specify the unscientific parts to see if they are acceptable. Joes are traveling in cryo and by chance end up in close orbit around a rogue black hole. To a remote observer it looks like Joes time slows down, allowing Joes to orbit many decades. Joes, in cryo, does not experience anything special. Apollos have some reason to try to locate the Joes. For instance they may have old records of Joes spacecraft sending a distress signal that looks more and more red shifted. Apollos detect a redshifted signal from Joes craft and manages to interpret it. Apollos send a mission* to Joes location. The mission spacecraft, getting close to Joes orbit, is also affected by the black hole gravity.This means the Apollos, in their frame of reference, will expect the mission to take a longer time. Some malfunction occurs, the mission takes more time than expected, for instance a basic repair for a few days in the orbit at Joes location could take several years in the Apollos frame of reference. The mission successfully pushes Joes out from the grip of the black hole and they travel to Apollos. Result: from Joes perspective they have spent a few years in cryo but “jumped forward” in time many many years. From Apollos perspective the mission to bring Joes to Apollos required much more time than expected. A narrative based on the above could have the same outcome as opening a wormhole to the past time but it introduces fewer elements that are completely scientifically impossible**. *) The mission could be unmanned. **) There are still many issues of course but my intention is to present an idea that is "more compatible" with general relativity than time travel would be.

Thanks, feel free to tweak and use the idea! * That would be possible. But there is a catch; we know that the narrative require elements far outside of the mainstream science. So the scientifically it will not work and that is already known. My critique, from science point of view, would be "This is completely impossible according to currently accepted scientific models." What we could do is extract the parts that can be strictly scientific and analyse those while reducing any "explanations" of the unscientific ones to a bare minimum. The example above with the supernova would be: The wormhole technology is not explained since it is not possible according to current understanding. But the supernova information could be based on an observed event making those parts of the narrative scientific. Anyone reading the narrative would find that the supernova event, as it would be observed in reality, is backed by theories and observations. The supernova's connection to wormholes is completely fiction and no explanation is provided, anyone looking for explanations gets into a dead end rather than an invalid explanation full of errors. So I usually try to think the other way around, starting with the fiction and it's audience. What kind of non-scientific elements and explanations will look "true" or "correct" in the specific situation in the work of fiction and appeal to the intended audience? What can/can't the audience accept? Does it have to look scientific to a trained engineer or scientist? Crude analogy: Tolkien may give plenty of details about producing various types of ale, but maybe e provide no explanation how magic is actually working. Tolkien gave a description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief#Criticisms; Tolkien, J. R. R. "On Fairy-Stories". The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, George Allen & Unwin, 1983, pp. 109–61. *) please send a link when game is released

Ok. It is tricky to know what the narrative allows when the narrative is only partially shared. Ok. Yes, several. Below is an example of a possible fictional passage. Disclaimer: The following is on topic but maybe more suitable in the lounge section, feel free to move the post. Below is fiction, no science*. To reach the designated location in time and space the Apollos had to stretch the wormhole technology to its limits. Some parameters had to be configured outside specifications, preferred operational margins were neglected and several safety function were overridden or disabled completely. The feedback from the system displayed several warnings but the crew managed to find a stable configuration just in time. They knew that the travel time would be slightly affected by the energy fluctuations due to the load but that was acceptable. What they unfortunately failed to realise was the sensitivity to events in real space, between entry and exit points, that the tweaking had introduced. By a mere chance a star, with a mass about 95 times the sun, turned into a Type II-P supernova while the wormhole was open. The sudden burst of energy in the line of sight between Apollos and Joes locations affected the wormhole path, making it bend and curl; anyone traveling through had to spend a lot more time in there. Such a prolonged time also had negative impact on crucial systems onboard any vehicles passing through. Any traveler through the wormhole would not only arrive very much later than expected, they would need quite a bit of luck to arrive in an operational vehicle. *) one exception actually, as far as i know a star of 95 times the mass of sun can turn into a type II-P supernova.

Someone able to create a time travel wormhole from 2050 to 4010 would know better. It looks like a plot hole to me. A rational explanation is not really possible in mainstream science when time travel is introduced. Maybe this is possible in your game universe: While Apollos are in cryo the wormhole has a minor malfunction. The Joes end up in the wrong location in space and have to travel at "slow" speed to Apollos. If Apollos lack the food required even to have one operator awake it could be logical in the plot that they also were short on reliable parts for the automatic control of the wormhole.

I have commented on your approach already, your comments in your latest post are just repetitions of your previous ones. Note that your outline is pretty much a compilation of obvious facts and general concepts. You have not given general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. You have given a general outline of what a flying racing car would not be like. The general ideas and concepts you have posted have been tried in various combinations already, with very limited success. So until you come up with some new approach there is not much to say other than that your general outline has the same problems as all other attempts to build flying cars and also the same limited probability for success.

No, at east not yet. Side note: The opening post reminds me of an old documentary* "The Devil at Your Heels". A driver uses a rocket powered Lincoln, with tiny wings/spoilers, to attempt a 1 mile jump. Phi's comment "Sort of a one-off flight, right, with no way to turn or land?" could be a good description of that video. Yes there are race cars with superb acceleration. And there are extremely few flying cars. As far as I can tell the idea is the same or similar to lots of existing ideas of combining a car and an aircraft. As an engineer I'm always sceptical when someone: - takes an old** idea that so far have not really come true - neglecting (intentionally or unintentionally) how existing iterations of the idea have failed or are delivering poor results. - adds practically noting new to the idea (scientific or engineering) - thinks the idea suddenly is plausible. Let's say I am an investor having the resources to build the proposed flying car. What makes your idea stand out? Why should I invest in your idea instead of a more practical or useful one? What are the major engineering achievements you have done that will make this idea works when others have failed? Also note that you of course can take old ideas and create something successful. But you have to add, or have, something new and/or different than those that already tried without success. *) Or mockumentary, I do not really know. **) 100+ years

Ok. High speed takeoff: Noting new, just more impractical. You need to have a straight road, free of traffic, and suitable safety measures in place to be able to take off. That implies an airstrip rather than a public road. And the same is needed when landing. Turbo fans: Nothing new; google for car flying turbo fan to find loads of designs. None of them are generally available as far as I know. But if any of those existing designs would successfully be delivered to the market many of them seems more practical than your suggestion. Vertical takeoff and landing for instance. Having a car that can fly away from any location that a helicopter can reach (and legally use) seems more appealing than having to drive on the ground to an airport.

For each question you have introduced large changes, for instance from one jet engine to two jet engines to two turbo fans. The central idea seems just to be "flying race car" so let's try some more overview questions instead. Flying cars, or maybe more suitable "roadable aircraft" have been attempted since at least 1917* but there are not many working models as far as I know. A flying car is a pretty simple idea but making it happen seems really hard. Question: What are the main differences between your idea and earlier attempts? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_Autoplane

Then the car will be really long and not very useful for racing? Probably not. It sounds very impractical. What is the purpose of the vehicle?

How large do you propose the wings to be? I guess that wings of suitable size will make the vehicle more of an airplane and not a car.

That's not for me to decide but as long as you don't claim that the "magic" exists I guess several aspects of the thought experiment fits in the mainstream sections. One way I think that paradoxes could arise in your experiment is due to relativity of simultaneity. If we had observers in relative movement of one another and they also could instantaneously jump 5 lightyears (not possible of course) that seem to allow time travel paradoxes. For instance combining Andromeda Paradox* and (impossible) instant travel and relative movement would allow observers to jump and arrive at different times and interact with, and cause events that are not allowed in theories of relativity. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument

Yes, no and it depends. Problem is that when instant travel or instant exchange of information is introduced into accepted theories of relativity the theories does not predict what is supposed to happen. I think the thought experiment is interesting as a way to see how and why problems arise. As far as I can tell: Lets remove the magic from the post it and assume that A, B and C are not moving relative to one another. Then your description seems to match what observers, stationary at A, B and C, would be calculating using mainstream theories. Observations from C, using a telescope to look at a synchronised clocks located at the other locations (A and B) seems to fit your description.

One way is to check what others have tied and why they are not in the market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_notebook may give some hints; it is not a very good wikipedia page but the fact is that all the page's references to various manufacturers and models seems outdated and/or links are not working.

(emphasis mine) If some permanent batteries really existed, supplying power for an infinite amount of time, then I guess it would allow for perpetual swinging pendulums. Ken probably meant permanent magnets.

Here is one big issue that seem to falsify the rest of your post Universe as we know it has no centre; no mainstream theories aI'm aware of supposes that there is a centre. Do the scientific source do you refer to explicitly claim a centre or is it due to your own understanding of the subject? The large scale expansion of the universe is It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. Not galaxies moving apart and away from a central point. edit: x-post with @MigL

What is perpetual energy? All such devices that I have seen were battery powered, often with electronics hidden to make the movement look like perpetual motion. Perpetual motion machines are not physically possible.

I agree to both. I have not researched the source in any extent, there may be more context given by the author. But I would not be surprised if the linked document deliberately used a vague english statement with the intention to inspire comments like those from John and studiot.

True. I this case though the tutorial OP refers to they have decided on one meaning and then they use that as an example: (From the document attached to first post) Side note: I find John's comment interesting in relation to use of machine translation and intent extraction. I did not think the sentence was very ambiguous when reading the tutorial, but that was probably because I was biased by the choice already made by the author. Also, english is not my first language and the level of ambiguity may not be the same when translating back and forth. I have no source to support this observation, it's mote a personal note.