4 ms·

Without having read anything but your comment: The economic impact to the attendant ('observer travelling with the goods') is not diminished by his own experie

Without having read anything but your comment: The economic impact to the attendant ('observer travelling with the goods') is not diminished by his own experience of the passage of time, but is affected by the reduction in his own ability to take on other tasks during the same [external] time frame. In other words, it doesn't matter that he experienced the travel as five minutes. What matters is that his options were limited for five days.

gravitas 6y ago
Without having read anything but your comment: What about the actual vs. perceived wear and tear on the ships(?) transporting the goods, do they experience 5 days worth of repair/upkeep (fuel?) needs, or 5 minutes? Maintaining the transport (vehicle, ransible, teleporter, whatever) has some sort of cost - TANSTAAFL.
- the_af 6y ago
  The passage of time is the same for the transport and its crew, i.e. 5 minutes. It's only the stationary observer (not travelling with the ship) who experiences 5 days.
- elil17 6y ago
  Most of the paper assumes zero fuel and maintenance costs
vnorilo 6y ago
I think it is more complicated as they will presumably also age slower, thus trade the time lost right now to gain more later. It is all too fantastical for me to speculate on the market value of that transaction.
dmurray 6y ago
But his needs (food, shelter,...) only had to be met for 5 minutes, while he could have invested money and earned interest for 5 days. This is a minor plot point in Orson Scott Card's Ender series, and in Futurama.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vsareto 6y ago
We can turn this on its head and ask a similarly tricky question: Should a human that can live for 1000 years be allowed to access interest rates that 100 year humans get? A 1,000 year human has many more opportunities, and compounding interest will only grow his wealth further. Here's only an initial $1000 investment over 1000 years: https://www.calculator.net/interest-calculator.html?cstartingprinciple=1000&cannualaddition=0&cmonthlyaddition=0&cadditionat1=beginning&cinterestrate=5&ccompound=annually&cyears=1000&ctaxtrate=3&cinflationrate=3&printit=0&x=60&y=8#interestresults https://www.calculator.net/interest-calculator.html?cstartin... At the end of it, they have $358,816,... a huge amount of money. By year 730, they're quintillionaires. Then they have roughly 270 years to spend it, and on top of that, they can hand some of that wealth off to their offspring if inheritance rules don't change. (So really, it's the subsequent generations you really have to worry about) Near light travel time dilation is essentially life extension relative to planetary populations. So any interest paid to the traveler should be calculated at the fraction of time experienced, so 5 minutes to 5 days would be 1 / 1440. As for any opportunity cost, well, there really isn't any greater opportunity cost than being able to extend your life by that much and wait for interest to accrue. So by virtue of being able to travel at near light speed and dilate time, you're quite happy to forgo every other opportunity.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  > In other words, it doesn't matter that he experienced the travel as five minutes. What matters is that his options were limited for five days. > Near light travel time dilation is essentially life extension relative to planetary populations. So any interest paid to the traveler should be calculated at the fraction of time experienced, so 5 minutes to 5 days would be 1 / 1440. Why should either the lender's clock or the borrower's clock be considered more valid for the purpose of calculating interest? Why is one privileged over the other?
  - qndreoi 6y ago
    I think the lender's clock would be most valid. If I go to the bank for a loan, they usually aren't open to negotiation. They say "Here are the terms. Want the money?"

gravitas 6y ago

Without having read anything but your comment: What about the actual vs. perceived wear and tear on the ships(?) transporting the goods, do they experience 5 days worth of repair/upkeep (fuel?) needs, or 5 minutes? Maintaining the transport (vehicle, ransible, teleporter, whatever) has some sort of cost - TANSTAAFL.

the_af 6y ago
The passage of time is the same for the transport and its crew, i.e. 5 minutes. It's only the stationary observer (not travelling with the ship) who experiences 5 days.
elil17 6y ago
Most of the paper assumes zero fuel and maintenance costs

vnorilo 6y ago

I think it is more complicated as they will presumably also age slower, thus trade the time lost right now to gain more later. It is all too fantastical for me to speculate on the market value of that transaction.

dmurray 6y ago

But his needs (food, shelter,...) only had to be met for 5 minutes, while he could have invested money and earned interest for 5 days. This is a minor plot point in Orson Scott Card's Ender series, and in Futurama.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

vsareto 6y ago

We can turn this on its head and ask a similarly tricky question: Should a human that can live for 1000 years be allowed to access interest rates that 100 year humans get? A 1,000 year human has many more opportunities, and compounding interest will only grow his wealth further. Here's only an initial $1000 investment over 1000 years: https://www.calculator.net/interest-calculator.html?cstartingprinciple=1000&cannualaddition=0&cmonthlyaddition=0&cadditionat1=beginning&cinterestrate=5&ccompound=annually&cyears=1000&ctaxtrate=3&cinflationrate=3&printit=0&x=60&y=8#interestresults https://www.calculator.net/interest-calculator.html?cstartin... At the end of it, they have $358,816,... a huge amount of money. By year 730, they're quintillionaires. Then they have roughly 270 years to spend it, and on top of that, they can hand some of that wealth off to their offspring if inheritance rules don't change. (So really, it's the subsequent generations you really have to worry about) Near light travel time dilation is essentially life extension relative to planetary populations. So any interest paid to the traveler should be calculated at the fraction of time experienced, so 5 minutes to 5 days would be 1 / 1440. As for any opportunity cost, well, there really isn't any greater opportunity cost than being able to extend your life by that much and wait for interest to accrue. So by virtue of being able to travel at near light speed and dilate time, you're quite happy to forgo every other opportunity.

ryandrake 6y ago
> In other words, it doesn't matter that he experienced the travel as five minutes. What matters is that his options were limited for five days. > Near light travel time dilation is essentially life extension relative to planetary populations. So any interest paid to the traveler should be calculated at the fraction of time experienced, so 5 minutes to 5 days would be 1 / 1440. Why should either the lender's clock or the borrower's clock be considered more valid for the purpose of calculating interest? Why is one privileged over the other?
- qndreoi 6y ago
  I think the lender's clock would be most valid. If I go to the bank for a loan, they usually aren't open to negotiation. They say "Here are the terms. Want the money?"