If you do it in a country that doesn't allow you to be declared legally dead when you are out of contact for a couple centuries, and if the institutions involved don't collapse, and if the interest on the account outpaces inflation, sure.
What percentage of the banks that were around 222 years ago have not failed?
So it might not be that far fetched, assuming that the banks keep your accounts open after more than 100 years without use.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_contin...
I was just pointing out that it might be somewhat possible for banks to exist for a span of time big enough for this.
Seems like your best bet would be to park your money with several very old banks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_contin...
Also might want to think about purchasing bonds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_contin...
Lloyds bank founded 1765
Barclays founded 1736
I doubt any banks in the new world are as old.
You're on a grass field, sitting on one of those riding lawnmower thingies, with a broken throttle. It's moving at a fixed speed of 1mph. You can't ever change its velocity. But you can steer it. If you are going precisely east-west, then it means you're not going north-south. The more you go north-south, the less you'll be going east-west. If you're going precisely north-south, it means you're not going east-west at all. One direction is traded against the other.
Pretty straightforward, right?
So here's the analogy: that grass field is a "dimension" in the same way that "spacetime" is a "dimension". The two "directions" of spacetime aren't "east-west" and "north-south", but "space" and "time". These are inherently traded against each other. The more you're moving through one, the less you're moving through the other.
So what about that constant-velocity rideable lawnmower? That's "c" -- the speed of light. You're always traveling at this velocity. If you are sitting still in space, then you are nonetheless moving through time. Your rate of movement through time is "c". But as soon as you start moving through space, it means you are moving less through time. This is exactly the same tradeoff as moving north-south vs. east-west. If you devote 100% of your "c" to moving in the direction of the "space" axis, then it means you're not moving on the "time" axis at all.
(This is basically all it means for something to be a "dimension": different axes that are traded against one another.)
This analogy can be used to understand quite precisely how movement relates to time dilation. (It also helped me understand e=mc^2. Why is "c" there? What does the speed of light have to do with the embodied energy of matter at rest? Answer: nothing is ever at rest; all static matter is moving through through time at the velocity of "c", and obviously that movement must have kinetic energy.) But it's not a completely perfect analogy. Weirder relativistic effects like length contraction and frame dragging need much weirder analogies.
This may not be a problem for some definitions of time, but for the notion of time which goes from past to future, I don't think the analogy holds very well.
As far as we have observed, the same is not true with (the common-language definition of) time - I can't go back to the moment I was born, for example.
If my understanding is correct, this same condition exists inside the photon limit of a black hole. Technically you're still in navigable space -- not inside the singularity yet -- and can move in any direction. But to actually escape the black hole would require accelerating faster than the speed of light.
Again, if my understanding is correct -- and I'm definitely not a phycisist by any stretch of the imagination -- our movement through time is exactly the same phenomena. We can slow our velocity through time (by moving through space instead), but we can't escape our local reference frame without moving faster than the speed of light. If we could exceed the speed of light, then we would be moving into spatial regions which are otherwise causally inaccessible to us; in other words, we'd be going backwards in time.
So: if we could go FTL, we could escape from black holes, visit parts of the universe beyond the locally-observable limit, and go backwards in time. I think (IANAP) that these are all describing precisely the same thing.
Dunno if this helps. The lawnmower analogy has definitely broken down by this point.
Also, it makes me think: if our experience of time is navigationally equivalent to the experience of space for someone getting sucked into a black hole, does that imply the existence of a higher-dimensional universe where ordinary, non-accelerating time is as fully navigable as our ordinary "non-accelerating" space? And in that higher-dimension universe, are we living near the surface of some kind of singularity? Do the inhabitants of that universe wonder about how sad it must be for poor creatures like us, forced to live on a time gradient which inexorably slopes in just one direction, the way we might commiserate the fate of those sucked into a black hole?
From the perspective of an object accelerating, newtonian physics works totally intuitively. If you had a rocket that could accelerate at 1g indefinitely, you just go faster and faster and faster and you get to any destination you want (even far away!) pretty quickly. And it would be a rather comfortable trip! You'd have Earth-like gravity the whole way.
It's really only the observer's perspective that things get confusing. When an observer watches something accelerate, they see it never going faster than the speed of light, no matter how fast it "actually" goes.
The trick is time. Time for slow things passes faster than time for fast things. A clock on a very fast rocket ticks much more slowly than clocks on (relatively) stationary things. That's how the paradox is solved.
Let's say you wanted to visit the Andromeda galaxy, which is around 2,500,000 light years away. If you had a rocket that could travel at 1g indefinitely, you'd get there in a comfortable 29 years! However, observers on Earth would see the trip taking around 2,500,000 years.
If you'd like to play with these numbers yourself, feel free to check out this neat calculator (not made by me)
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/spacetravel...
Time might not even exist in and of itself.
It is worth adding for the sake of clarity that light has no perspective or frame of reference because photons are non-inertial.
And for that reason they don't experience distance either. So the term 'sun-kissed' isn't actually that far off...from the photon's perspective the sun IS giving you a kiss.
Spend twice as long on boats though (32 years) and you can do about 10,000 light years.
And what if you drove your ship straight into a super-massive black hole?
There's a short story about the Big Rip
https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solari...
I should make a kickstarter, but I am already in my jammies.
But granted, all people I know would be dead and some I could find in the history books maybe..
Where you would also be, at that stage.
You might come back to discover that after several generations without oversight your trust has invested in bombing children and enriching the fund managers. I dunno.
All of Europe has gone through multiple revolutions, USA was only 30 years old back then so you wouldn’t have considered it ... that leaves what, the UK? Any parts of Asia that survived since 1797?
Nothing is risk-free, diversify! The likeliest outcome aside from coming back to nothing is you come back to an institution that is nothing like what it started.
https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/franklin-templeton/investin...
Maintaining 1g of acceleration for a useful amount of time would require an extraordinary amount of propellant.
All of those estimates are tongue-in-cheek and are accurate if your energy expenditure is actually unlimited.
Not really that long.
Travelling at that speed (0,00064c - no relativistic effects) would take ~170,000 years.
If we could pull that trick so easily, we already would have.