Do Flat Earthers Agree with Everything Samuel Rowbotham Said?

I am writing a paper about some of the science behind flat earth theory and would like to know more about everyones views on Samuel Rowbotham: specifically if there are any experiments within "Earth not a Globe..." that Flat Earth Supporters disagree with.

Many of us aren't too keen on his estimates for the height of stars etc. He quotes 700 miles for the height of the sun. Anyway, common consensus seems to be that Wilbur Voliva was more accurate. Below are Voliva's numbers.

The distance is figured out using trigonometry. Below is an example of how Wilbur Voliva arrived at the numbers he got. For me personally these are the numbers I agree with.
Many other FErs prefer Rowbotham's calculations, but there is not a lot in it.


Full document here


Rowbotham calculates distance to the sun (less than 700 miles) He states all stars etc are below 1000 miles.

I'm not too keen on his chapter at the end about earth perishing in fire either.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm

Ya, I actually just got to that last part. Had a "that escalated quickly" moment.

One of the main problems I have are his projectile motion diagrams (throwing a ball straight up on a moving train or firing a gun straight upwards). He don't take Newtons first law into consideration, and assume that the force would be "used up" after the ball reached its highest position.

When drawing a force body diagram, you can treat horizontal and vertical motion separately, so while the upwards horizontal momentum would eventually be "drained away" and reversed by gravity. There are no forces acting in the vertical direction except for air resistance. Experimentally, you can walk forward and toss a ball straight into the air. It will continue moving forward until you catch it again (or drop it on the ground).

This principal, that projectiles (any particle moving with both vertical and horizontal vector components) follows a parabolic path (rather than something that looks more like a right triangle as illustrated on page 66 of "earth not a globe...") has been experimentally demonstrated ad nauseum.

If you were standing on a train and throwing a ball up in the air, it wouldn't surprise me if the higher air resistance (wind from traveling at 30 mph) would cause the kinds of results that Samuel Rowbotham got.

The same principle applies to the experiment involving firing a gun straight upwards. The only difference is that in RET, the atmosphere rotates at the same speed as the planet, so vertical air resistance would be negligible unless it was windy.

I think his best work is his tide experiments.

He's famous for the Bedford Level experiments but his work on tides is very comprehensive.

I agree with the philosophy he lays out regarding zeteticism, but I don't agree with a great many of his conclusions.

The modern approach to flat earth theory does not have to use Earth is not a Globe (a bibliographical reference of great value).

The best part of Rowbotham's work is chapter XIV, but even there he assumes that it is the Moon which causes the solar eclipse.

Unfortunately for the FES, his classic experiments cannot be used as a proof, since the RE will deny them immediately, just as the FE will show that the Nasa missions never actually took place. His experiments at Bedford were of course performed as described in chapter II, but the RE can always argue that they never actually occurred or that they were flawed in some sense.


Rowbotham makes the most mistakes in chapters V - IX, the sections pertaining to the orbit of the Sun, that is why we need the alternative flat earth theory to provide all the answers which are missing the official FAQ.

Like Roundy, I tend to agree more with Rowbotham's description of the Zetetic Method than his application of it.

The modern approach to flat earth theory does not have to use Earth is not a Globe (a bibliographical reference of great value).

The best part of Rowbotham's work is chapter XIV, but even there he assumes that it is the Moon which causes the solar eclipse.

Unfortunately for the FES, his classic experiments cannot be used as a proof, since the RE will deny them immediately, just as the FE will show that the Nasa missions never actually took place. His experiments at Bedford were of course performed as described in chapter II, but the RE can always argue that they never actually occurred or that they were flawed in some sense.


Rowbotham makes the most mistakes in chapters V - IX, the sections pertaining to the orbit of the Sun, that is why we need the alternative flat earth theory to provide all the answers which are missing the official FAQ.

So, he can only possibly wrong in the areas where his theory contradicts your own?