Do you agree that Newton was incorrect?
Yes. And that Einstein is more correct (and probably still slightly wrong).
This is the point of the Scientific Method. Science is not trying to specify the Laws by which the universe operate, it is trying to describe how we see the universe operate. What science does is come up with a model that describe the phenomena that we observe in a way that we can use to predict what will occur in similar situations, or situations based on the original phenomena.
As we are able to make more accurate observations, we encounter differences between the currently accepted model and the observations. The model is then changed, or abandoned and replaced with a more accurate one.
This is why scientists spend so much of their time trying to disprove everything. IF they can disprove the model, then the new, more accurate model can be constructed and we cna use that new model to make new predictions.
It is only when a model can not be disproved does it get called a Law. But, even these "Laws" are still subject to disproof and if they do get disproven then the scientist in question is usually set to become quite famous.
More scientists have won the Nobel prize for their disprovals than they have for proving and existing theory correct.
This is an important point. Science is not against a Flat Earth Theory, except that any model of a Flat Earth that has been proposed has been shown not to match to observations, that is they keep getting disproved. If a Flat Earth model were to be proposed that disproved a Round Earth, then the person who developed it would become the most famous person in history, and pretty much every scientist would be celebrating this momentous discovery.
However, RET has not yet been disproven, and all prediction made from it match all experiment that is performed. And this is not for lack of trying.
As a case in point. Rowbotham's derivation of Pi cn be checked by making a circle with a known radius, and then directly measuring the diameter. If the measurements match the prediction of the calculations using Rowbotham's value for Pi, then we can conclude that his value is more accurate. However, if the measurements do not match up with his value, then we can say that the predictions based on his theory of Pi are wrong and therefore his theory of the value of Pi is also wrong.
As Rowbotham's value for Pi is different to the accepted value for Pi, then this is easily checked. Very accurate measurements of circles (use for manufacturing) show that the accepted value for Pi is correct, and as Rowbotham's is different, then his does not give the correct predictions, so must therefore be wrong and any calculations made using that value of Pi will also be wrong.