The Instigator
Kahvan
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
deathdebater
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

it is possible to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Kahvan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,894 times Debate No: 10695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

Kahvan

Pro

First off I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate.

My argument as stated as the topic is that it is possible for an object to travel for an infinite amount of time towards another object. My opening point will be a mathematical one. If you only ever travel half the distance then you will never reach your end point thus making it possible to travel forever towards one point.

In order for my opponent to win he has to prove that it is absolutely impossible for one object to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time.
deathdebater

Con

===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <===

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting subject with which to debate upon.

In my opponent's resolution they have made the following assumptions:

-Time is an infinite concept
-Friction does not exist
-No other outside forces exist (I.E. no other planets, suns, objects, etc)
-possible is defined to be mathematically/theoretically possible rather than possible in reality.
-The force acting upon two objects (if objects are not acting independently in traveling) are infinite (I.E. mankind's existance is infinite)
- The two objects themselve are infinite (if objects are acting independently)

I will now take each assumption and show why my opponent's resolution is impossible.

===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- A S S U M P T I O N S <===

--->Time is an infinite concept<---
Time is merely a measuring tool created by man. Time's existence itself is finite because man's existence is finite. Time itself is measurable. Infinity itself is not measurable. Therefore time cannot be infinite.

"It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value, for instance by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is for example presumed impossible for any body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. There exists the concept of infinite entities (such as an infinite plane wave) but there are no means to generate such things."

SOURCE:http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com...

--->Mankind is finite<---
Currently we know that in 5 billion years our sun will run out of hydrogen gas
SOURCE:http://www.iptv.org...

Currently it is impossible to travel to another solar system that obtains energy from another sun. It is also impossible to move to another livable planet in another livable solar system. Therefore as of now it is impossible that mankind will outlive the existence of the sun.

--->Friction does not exist and neither do any other outside forces(I.E. no other planets, suns, objects, etc)<---
My opponent is assuming that friction does not exist if the assumption is that the two objects traveling towards each other were propelled by another object. Furthermore every object in the universe has gravity no matter what point in the universe an object is located if there is another object gravity is being exerted by it. If the objects were propelled by other objects gravity pulling at the objects would eventually move them to a stop/reverse directions or increase the speed so the object would no longer be traveling at half the distance each time.

--->The force acting upon two objects (if objects are not acting independently in traveling) are infinite (I.E. mankind's existance is infinite)<--
If the objects are propelled at the exact rate by mankind this precludes that mankind is infinite (see argument above related to mankinds existance). If the objects are propelled by an energy source my opponent should note that no energy source is infinite.

--->The two objects themselves are infinite (if objects are acting independently)<---
Two objects that can move independently are known as animate objects. No two animate objects have an unlimited lifespan.

===> C O N C L U S I O N <===

Having shown that time itself cannot be an infinite concept by a number of reasons, and having shown that it is currently impossible for two objects travel an finite distance for an infinite amount of time by a variety of means (both by being given constant force by some infinite energy source(mankind or other), independently, or being propelled by an initial force) I have successfully negated my opponents affirmation. Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
Kahvan

Pro

In response I will present a scenario that is entirely possible in spite of what my opponent has said.

The object is an atom in the void of space. The atom starts at point A and is headed to point be a a rate of travel that is always half the distance it needs to reach point B. In this scenario the atom will for an infinite amount of time be traveling towards point B. In terms of writing mathmatically, to determine this distance it is traveling you just put 1/2 over 2, over 2, over 2, over 2.

Having said this I will adress some points that my opponent made.

"--->Time is an infinite concept<---
Time is merely a measuring tool created by man. Time's existence itself is finite because man's existence is finite. Time itself is measurable. Infinity itself is not measurable. Therefore time cannot be infinite."

Want to know how I measure infinity? I can do it with a simple symbol. This symbol represents infinity and is even ised in some mathematical equations. The following link helps to describe infinity. Infinity can be represented and parts of it can be measured. For example. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. The numbers we have are inifnite but I can measure the difference between 1 and 2 for example. The difference between 1 and 2 is 1.
http://mathforum.org...

I would also like to say concerning time that we developed ways of measuring it because it exists. If it did not exist then we would not be able to measure it.

"--->Friction does not exist and neither do any other outside forces(I.E. no other planets, suns, objects, etc)<---
My opponent is assuming that friction does not exist if the assumption is that the two objects traveling towards each other were propelled by another object. Furthermore every object in the universe has gravity no matter what point in the universe an object is located if there is another object gravity is being exerted by it. If the objects were propelled by other objects gravity pulling at the objects would eventually move them to a stop/reverse directions or increase the speed so the object would no longer be traveling at half the distance each time."

lets say the atom mentioned in my scenario before is so much in the void of space that you cant even see any light. Being this far away the atom would not have to worry about friction or gravity.

"--->Mankind is finite<---
Currently we know that in 5 billion years our sun will run out of hydrogen gas
SOURCE:http://www.iptv.org......

Currently it is impossible to travel to another solar system that obtains energy from another sun. It is also impossible to move to another livable planet in another livable solar system. Therefore as of now it is impossible that mankind will outlive the existence of the sun."

This is a whole other debate that is irrelivant to this debate. Whether or not we exist the object in question could still be traveling for an infinite amount of time even if we are no longer in existence.

Currently it is impossible to travel to another solar system that obtains energy from another sun. It is also impossible to move to another livable planet in another livable solar system. Therefore as of now it is impossible that mankind will outlive the existence of the sun.

"--->The force acting upon two objects (if objects are not acting independently in traveling) are infinite (I.E. mankind's existance is infinite)<--
If the objects are propelled at the exact rate by mankind this precludes that mankind is infinite (see argument above related to mankinds existance). If the objects are propelled by an energy source my opponent should note that no energy source is infinite."

The atom is moving with momentum. The momentum it has in the viod of space would be enough to propel it since it would not encounter friction because it would have nothing with which to have friction.

"--->The two objects themselves are infinite (if objects are acting independently)<---
Two objects that can move independently are known as animate objects. No two animate objects have an unlimited lifespan."

I would offer up two things then. What about the fundamental building block of the universe? This fundamental building block would last forever.

If you dont agree with that then then how about this. What is traveling from point A to B is energy?

The debate is on whether or not it is possible to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time. I think I have clearly demonstrated that this is possible.
deathdebater

Con

===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <===
I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response.

===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- E X A M P L E <===

My opponent's entire example fails due to the fact that gravity exists. My opponent may say "It's in a void of space gravity doesn't exist there" However he would be incorrect. Gravity exists everywhere because other objects exist in this universe besides the two atoms. These outside forces will turn the objects on different courses which will divert their course away from each other. Thus they will no longer be technically traveling toward each other and may even come to a direct standstill. Due to the size of my opponent's scenario with atoms they will be extremely affected by gravity due to their small size and thus will be incredibly susceptible to gravity.

SOURCE (gravity exists everywhere in the universe):http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com...

If my opponent defends this statement with "In my example other objects besides the two atoms then technically it again fails based on a couple concepts: mankind will then not exist therefore time will not exist thus defeating his example that it will occur for an infinite amount of time. Furthermore it also fails baised on the premise of its possibility. My opponent's resolution states "It is possible" not "It is mathematically possible in hypothetical theory" These two statements are completely different. In hypothetical theory yes I concede it exists, however in nature it is completely impossible. As this debate is about nature my opponent has failed at proving his resolution via this example.

===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- A S S U M P T I O N S <===

--->Time is an infinite concept<---
"Want to know how I measure infinity? I can do it with a simple symbol."

A symbol is not a measurement it is a symbol. In this case it is a symbol of a concept known as infinity.

Numbers are a measurement. Numbers cannot be counted. Your source that you provided itself states:
"Infinity is not a number; it is the name for a concept."
SOURCE: http://mathforum.org...

"I would also like to say concerning time that we developed ways of measuring it because it exists. If it did not exist then we would not be able to measure it."

Incorrect. Time did not exist or was measured before mankind. Time is a measurement. Mankind invented measurement. Thus time did not exist before mankind and it will not exist after mankind.

Kant also did not believe that time existed before or after mankind. "With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject."
SOURCE: http://www.iep.utm.edu...

--->Friction does not exist and neither do any other outside forces(I.E. no other planets, suns, objects, etc)<---
"lets say the atom mentioned in my scenario before is so much in the void of space that you cant even see any light. Being this far away the atom would not have to worry about friction or gravity."

Gravity exists everywhere thus both your example and assumption fail.

(See above source regarding your example)

--->Mankind is finite<---
"This is a whole other debate that is irrelivant to this debate. Whether or not we exist the object in question could still be traveling for an infinite amount of time even if we are no longer in existence."

Incorrect is extremely relevant as the existance of time is dependent upon the existance of mankind or another rational species that can measure time.

--->The force acting upon two objects (if objects are not acting independently in traveling) are infinite (I.E. mankind's existance is infinite)<--

"The atom is moving with momentum. The momentum it has in the viod of space would be enough to propel it since it would not encounter friction because it would have nothing with which to have friction."

This argument ignores gravity's existance which is a falsehood as gravity exists everywhere (see source above under argument of example)

--->The two objects themselves are infinite (if objects are acting independently)<---
"What about the fundamental building block of the universe? This fundamental building block would last forever."

Define Fundamental building block of the universe

"If you dont agree with that then then how about this. What is traveling from point A to B is energy?"
Electromagnetic energy is not an object as defined by your resolution, nor could it be possible to slow it down infinitely.

===> C O N C L U S I O N <===

My opponent clearly has not shown that "it is possible for an object to travel for an infinite amount of time towards another object." in nature. I have refuted every point my opponent has given using simple logic, and facts delved from reliable sources. My opponent has yet to offer an example that is possible nor rebut any of my contentions. Thus I have successfully refuted his resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Kahvan

Pro

I have looked at many sources and can refute all her points except one. That time exists. While argue that time exists and she argues that it is man made I cannot find any substantial proof to support my claim. The sources of information that I have looked at and might be able to use could also all be used by my opponent. So based on this I cannot refute her argument. Because of this I cannot prove that it is actually possible but only theoretically possible. Because I cant prove it is actually possible I concede the debate to my opponent however I do wish to get some points on certain areas as I believe I have not done so horrible a job as to deserve zero points.

I thank my opponent for this great debate in which she has been able to change my opinion on whether or not it is actually possible.
deathdebater

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate seriously and doing a good job at refuting my points. It has a pleasure debating with my opponent. I would be pleased to debate any topic with my opponent in the future and would like to welcome him to Debate.org. This certainly has been an interesting debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by faithinchaos21 4 years ago
faithinchaos21
I just wanted to point out that if his opponent is making the case that infinity does indeed exist "Numbers cannot be counted", then that would mean an object could travel to another in an infinite amount of time. Logically, if infinity exists, anything at all could happen at any time infinitely. An infinite number of parallel universes could exist simply because infinity exists. If that's true, then there could be one instance of an object moving forever towards another object with nothing in space at all. However, to make the case infinity does not exist, there can never be a universe that has nothing at all, a universe that does not exist. There cannot be 0, because 0 is nothing. Therefore, an object could not travel towards another infinitely.
Posted by Frodobaggins 7 years ago
Frodobaggins
"Con introduced the condition that no external forces could be applied."
I don't remember introducing that condition. My argument that external forces always are applied.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Roy, your statement contradicts Pro's point. Pro contradicts his own point.

"lets say the atom mentioned in my scenario before is so much in the void of space that you cant even see any light. Being this far away the atom would not have to worry about friction or gravity."
-If there is no friction, the atom cannot change speeds.

"The atom is moving with momentum. The momentum it has in the viod of space would be enough to propel it since it would not encounter friction because it would have nothing with which to have friction"
-If there is no force to act upon the atom, it's rate of speed would be constant. It could never, then, halve the rate of travel in order to halve the distance traveled.

"The atom starts at point A and is headed to point be a a rate of travel that is always half the distance it needs to reach point B. In this scenario the atom will for an infinite amount of time be traveling towards point B. In terms of writing mathmatically, to determine this distance it is traveling you just put 1/2 over 2, over 2, over 2, over 2."
-This is also contradictory because the atom only has one destination. At what point do you say "ok, the atom traveled this distance, and at the next point it will travel half that distance". If there is only point A and point B, it would have reached it's destination at the first measurement of distance traveled.

Pro contradicts himself over and over again.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Frodo, My example was only to show that a debate stands for evaluation whether or not one sid concedes or not. You said my example didn't apply because Con's arguments persuasive independent of the concession. That agrees with my point that the concession is not determinative.

In this debate, Con introduced the condition that no external forces could be applied. If that is accepted then the object, per Newton, cannot change velocity so Con wins. Pro should have jumped up and down with objections to adding that condition, but he pretty much let it slide. Had Pro vigorously objected, there would be no question of Pro winning, as nature is full of things that occur asymptotically. So the question in deciding the debate was whether Pro objected enough to Con's extra assumptions. I think so, but it was close.
Posted by Frodobaggins 7 years ago
Frodobaggins
Imagine a debate:
Pro: Lawn fairies exist.
Con: No they don't. There is no physical basis or documentary evidence for it.
Pro: My Uncle Fred sees them all the time.
Con: I concede.

That example is flawed as Con's (represents pro in example) arguments were nothing as you were stating but were completely logical.
Posted by Frodobaggins 7 years ago
Frodobaggins
@Roy, you are incorrectly judging the debate by using your bias.

Con ignored Pro's mathematical argument because the resolution wasn't that it was mathematically possible but possible in reality which Con did a fair job of proving that it isn't.

Pro even conceded, to vote Pro is ridiculous.
Posted by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
Of course if if I was still able to convince him even if I was not convinced then Roy would still be in the right.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Roy, I don't agree. When judging a debate a judge must weigh whether or not he is convinced, but also must take into consideration whether or not one debater was able to manipulate the other. In the example you gave, Pro convinced Con that he was right. That is the ultimate win in a debate- make the other person give up. I understand Kahvan's argument that he "can" win some points, but he definitely does not get the "arguments" points if he concedes. You can not have been "convincing" if you concede. If he convinced you, but concedes the debate, there is the before/after vote. This happens all the time where someone argues a point I agree with, but presents very weak arguments- especially if I know of a strong argument. But you are voting based on your own understanding, and not that of Pro. You say he "incorrectly conceded", but that is not your choice to make.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
My judgment is that he incorrectly conceded. The arguments presented were convincing enough, even though Pro himself could not see it. In other words, even though Pro may have been convinced, I was not. I think Pro's mistake was accepting too many of Con's long list of assumptions.

Imagine a debate:
Pro: Lawn fairies exist.
Con: No they don't. There is no physical basis or documentary evidence for it.
Pro: My Uncle Fred sees them all the time.
Con: I concede.

Who wins this hypothetical exchange? Con wins for giving the correct argument even though erroneously conceding.

I admit this a fine point of debate theory, but it does happen.
Posted by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
I conceded that I could not prove my main point. But based on the voting system a small chance remains that I may win. (emphasis on small)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ZKnecht 7 years ago
ZKnecht
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
KahvandeathdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30