Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?

  • 5 Replies
  • 1413 Views
Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« on: October 24, 2012, 07:38:32 AM »
I have been reading over this site for the last few months (with great enjoyment) and have seen Earth Not a Globe (ENaG) referenced as the foundational work for FE theory.  While trolling around on wikipedia I came across S. Rowbotham's write up.

Question: Were any active flat earthers involved in the creation/and or maintenance of Rowbotham's wiki?  Is there anything in his wiki article that is disputed by the FE community?

I ask this because the article is short and says nothing of its subject's education or religion.  It does, however, accuse him of "sexual misconduct" and using aliases to sell fallacious medical products including a "life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage".  Based on his wiki he seems to be a classic, 19th century snake-oil salesman with a talent for debate.  This is not the resume of someone who claims to overturn centuries of peer-reviewed research by men with names like Laplace, Newton and Copernicus.

As an aside I think that all our models of the universe have been flawed and will eventually be overlaid with a more thorough model that answers some of the questions raised by the preceding theories while opening questions of its own. The FE model is a valid model that works well over small land areas and where engineering or observational precision is not critical.  For example, building a single family home.   The construction of a skyscraper or modeling the solar system is much simpler with a RET and Newtonian physics.  I have enjoyed reading threads where FErs are trying to explain phenomena that RET explained half a millennium ago with lasting precision.  Forge on FErs.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2012, 07:46:19 AM »
No.

Over-sexed: To have sex just 14 times with your wife is not a lot. There was no contraception and no proof he had sex with his wife any more than this.

Incestuous:
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
In 1861 Rowbotham was married for a second time to the 16-year old daughter of his laundress and settled in London, producing 14 children, of whom 4 survived.
Not related to him but his laundress.

Paedophile:
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#History_26
A concern that young girls were being sold into brothels led Parliament to raise the age of consent to 13 in 1875 under the Offences against the Person Act 1875. After W. T. Stead's Maiden Tribute articles, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16.
His wife was 16. The age of consent was only 12 in 1861. She was positively an old maid by this point.

He was born in 1816 so he would have been 45 when he married.

Now the record is straight, let us join hands and hold Rowbotham in the highest reverence once again. Horrid Round Earthers. >:(
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2012, 11:10:45 AM »
The construction of a skyscraper or modeling the solar system is much simpler with a RET and Newtonian physics.

Why is the construction of a skyscraper simpler using RET?

?

cartwheelnurd

  • 517
  • Iname as One
Re: Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2012, 11:58:05 PM »
The construction of a skyscraper or modeling the solar system is much simpler with a RET and Newtonian physics.

Why is the construction of a skyscraper simpler using RET?

Obviously because everybody uses that when building. If the earth was generally agreed to be flat, then our building techniques would change because of it.
Ravioli is how the universe fills a small part of itself with cheese.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2012, 10:32:22 AM »
The construction of a skyscraper or modeling the solar system is much simpler with a RET and Newtonian physics.

Why is the construction of a skyscraper simpler using RET?

Obviously because everybody uses that when building. If the earth was generally agreed to be flat, then our building techniques would change because of it.

hahaha you are telling us that when building a tall structure the workforce consider the shape of the earth when building? what a load of crap. they flatten the local area and build on it. a spirit level will do in such a case to determine how flat the land it. i doubt bridges have to take the earths curvature into account.
its no wonder the flatties get all high and mighty when you post crap like that.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Does Rowbotham have a Wiki problem?
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2012, 12:49:55 PM »
The construction of a skyscraper or modeling the solar system is much simpler with a RET and Newtonian physics.

Why is the construction of a skyscraper simpler using RET?

Obviously because everybody uses that when building. If the earth was generally agreed to be flat, then our building techniques would change because of it.

We actually had a very long thread about this a few years ago. This was the result:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Humber_Bridge

If you don't care enough to read it, it's basically saying that nobody takes the shape of the Earth into account when building things because even if it is round, the curve is negligible for any reasonably sized construction.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 12:51:34 PM by Tausami »