[Macarios]

Facts (from reality) that we all know:
All places that simultaneously have solar noon lay on the common meridian. It means they have same longitude.
Distances along any single meridian don't depend on Earth model. In reality they are equal to each other between Flat and Globe.
Latitudes also don't depend on shape of the Earth. They are accurate under any model. It means you can perform simple conversion between degrees of latitude and distances along meridians.
Sun relative to Earth travles 15 degrees per hour. It is 1 degree in 4 minutes.
Sun projection (subsolar point) is always between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
For Equinox Sun is above Equator, for Summer solstice above Tropic of Cancer, for Winter solstice above Tropic of Capricorn.
Subsolar point has angular ground speed same as angular speed of Sun, which is 15 degrees per hour.

Part of the map, between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, can be made using known longitudes of places, known distances along meridians, and measured distances along parallels.
Linear ground speed of subsolar point can be derived from angular speed and measured distances between meridians at current parallels.

For example, if in Africa we measure ground speed between two known places, we can be sure on the sea to the east and west that speed was and will be the same during the same day.
Using known degrees from Africa to Australia we can measure distances over Indian Ocean, and using known degrees from Africa to South America we can measure distances over Atlantic Ocean.

When we have accurate segment between two Tropics, we can interpolate places between that and North pole, using known distances and longitudes.

Any suggestions?
Any corrections?

Thanks in advance.

[totallackey]

Facts (from reality) that we all know:
All places that simultaneously have solar noon lay on the common meridian. It means they have same longitude.
Distances along any single meridian don't depend on Earth model. In reality they are equal to each other between Flat and Globe.
Latitudes also don't depend on shape of the Earth. They are accurate under any model. It means you can perform simple conversion between degrees of latitude and distances along meridians.
Sun relative to Earth travles 15 degrees per hour. It is 1 degree in 4 minutes.
Sun projection (subsolar point) is always between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
For Equinox Sun is above Equator, for Summer solstice above Tropic of Cancer, for Winter solstice above Tropic of Capricorn.
Subsolar point has angular ground speed same as angular speed of Sun, which is 15 degrees per hour.

Part of the map, between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, can be made using known longitudes of places, known distances along meridians, and measured distances along parallels.
Linear ground speed of subsolar point can be derived from angular speed and measured distances between meridians at current parallels.

For example, if in Africa we measure ground speed between two known places, we can be sure on the sea to the east and west that speed was and will be the same during the same day.
Using known degrees from Africa to Australia we can measure distances over Indian Ocean, and using known degrees from Africa to South America we can measure distances over Atlantic Ocean.

When we have accurate segment between two Tropics, we can interpolate places between that and North pole, using known distances and longitudes.

Any suggestions?
Any corrections?

Thanks in advance.

All maps are flat already.

I am unaware of any map that was ever drawn on a globe first then ripped off of the globe to be placed in a flat position.

[AATW]

All maps are flat already.

I am unaware of any map that was ever drawn on a globe first then ripped off of the globe to be placed in a flat position.

Yes, maps are flat and they all have to make compromises to map the reality of a sphere onto a square. There is no perfect map, common projections squash the poles for example so Greenland looks tine when it is actually massive.

But flat earth should have no such problem. If the earth IS flat then you should be able to produce a map which perfectly matches the reality. Can you?
From what I understand you're still debating whether there are one poles or two. Don't fundamental problems like this not give you a clue that the flat earth model doesn't actually work or match observations?

[totallackey]

Yes, maps are flat and they all have to make compromises to map the reality of a sphere onto a square. There is no perfect map, common projections squash the poles for example so Greenland looks tine when it is actually massive.

Actually, I think it is the other way a round.

I think the flat paper needs to be altered even be placed on a globe.

Remember, the flat paper concept came first!

But flat earth should have no such problem. If the earth IS flat then you should be able to produce a map which perfectly matches the reality. Can you?

Can you perfectly describe reality?

No.

Man and humanity are incapable of perfection, period.

End of sentence.

Drops mic.

The closest to reality we are going to get is plus/minus 200 to 300 yards

From what I understand you're still debating whether there are one poles or two. Don't fundamental problems like this not give you a clue that the flat earth model doesn't actually work or match observations?

No.

I, personally, have made and took some notes about some observations.

I found no cause to believe that Flat Earth conflicted with those particular observations.

[AATW]

Actually, I think it is the other way a round.

I think the flat paper needs to be altered even be placed on a globe.

Remember, the flat paper concept came first!

Maps necessarily have to be flat for ease of storage and use, but given that the reality is we live on a globe there has to be some transformation from the globe (exact representation) to a map (projection).
But it is the globe which reflects reality.

Can you perfectly describe reality?

No.

Man and humanity are incapable of perfection, period.

End of sentence.

Drops mic.

I have literally no idea what definitive point you think you've made there. At best you've scored a semantic point. Fine. No map is going to be perfect. But if the earth is flat (it isn't) and a map is flat (it is) then no projection is required, a flat earth map of a flat earth could be made to scale with no transformation or projection.

No.

I, personally, have made and took some notes about some observations.

I found no cause to believe that Flat Earth conflicted with those particular observations.

OK. Well, every sunset contradicts you. You can shout perspective all day long, I've yet to see a diagram or model which shows how a sun 3,000 miles above a flat plane can appear to intersect the flat horizon like you'd observe at sea. Feel free to provide one though.

[Macarios]

all maps are already flat
globes are just circular maps and are make the mapping experience more fun, but are not accurate.

Are Globes less accurate than flat world maps?

What is the diference between Mercator projection, Robinson projection and Gall-Peters projection?

Why is there the difference?