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

===> 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.