Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Just because something was determined centuries ago does not mean it is void with the passage of time.

Neither does it mean it's a source of inviolable wisdom. Newton's work, though still valid in certain circumstances, has largely been supplanted by later observations of the way the Universe operates. By what metric can you determine the validity of the sources you cite?

Generally it is only when a new theory has established the ability to answer known observations in accordance with known theories that we are willing to trust that theory beyond a point of previously known observations. In which case most theories are not utterly refuted (though some are), but are commonly expanded or work in conjunction with one another.

I am utilizing the theory in a manner that seems to come to a viable answer. To refute that answer by saying I should stop sticking to old theories and get with the times (argument ad novitatem) is no rebuttal at all. Otherwise I am equally justified in saying that theory is new and has not been traditionally used and tested (or as tested as the old one) so we cannot use that (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

Which sources are you inquiring about?