[Spycrab]

Navigation as been brought up before. It's amazing how people navigated for centries with charts and maps of the 'wrong' earth.
Wrong being round in this context of course.
But what did they use to navigate? Maps. What did those maps show? The globe. Did they do it well? No, they were all innacurate, and would bend distances, because there is no way to accurately put a 3d surface on to a 2d surface and vice versa. There will always be some distortion.
Why are they all distorted if the earth is flat and can be represented on a 2d map without distortion?
Why are they successful at navigating despite being about the round earth?
Why is there no flat earth map? Certainly someone would have manfactured one at some point.
Why can the flat earth models not correctly show the southern hemisphere without distortion?
Why, despite the whole planet being mapped, has no one found/photographed/explored the ice wall?
Fun fact: NASA was founded in 1958, while nautical charts go back as far as 1339 with the Portolan Chart, so no conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portolan_chart
Excited for a response.

[TomInAustin]

Navigation as been brought up before. It's amazing how people navigated for centries with charts and maps of the 'wrong' earth.
Wrong being round in this context of course.
But what did they use to navigate? Maps. What did those maps show? The globe. Did they do it well? No, they were all innacurate, and would bend distances, because there is no way to accurately put a 3d surface on to a 2d surface and vice versa. There will always be some distortion.
Why are they all distorted if the earth is flat and can be represented on a 2d map without distortion?
Why are they successful at navigating despite being about the round earth?
Why is there no flat earth map? Certainly someone would have manfactured one at some point.
Why can the flat earth models not correctly show the southern hemisphere without distortion?
Why, despite the whole planet being mapped, has no one found/photographed/explored the ice wall?
Fun fact: NASA was founded in 1958, while nautical charts go back as far as 1339 with the Portolan Chart, so no conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portolan_chart
Excited for a response.

It is typical in navigation to use sectional charts that show a much smaller area and do not have much distortion creep in.   No one navigates with a full globe projection

[Tontogary]

Encyclopaedia Britannica was used by Charlatan Rowbotham as a reference, so i am hopeful that it will be accepted here, if not then it can be ignored in EnaG as well, which further debunks slime of his writings.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Mercator-projection

Very short simple description of Mercator projection, before which charts for navigating were notoriously hit and miss (even after, but due to surveying issues) thus 99.9% of my navigational charts are Mercator projection, ie a flat chart of what is a globe, which is why the scale at N and S is stretched.

They are not any good for polar navigation, different charts are used for that.

There are literally thousands of references on google to get a more detailed description

[juner]

Encyclopaedia Britannica was used by Charlatan Rowbotham...

We get it, you don't like Rowbotham. Stop doing this in every post, otherwise they are going to get punted to AR and warnings/bans will be given as needed.

[Tontogary]

Encyclopaedia Britannica was used by Charlatan Rowbotham...

We get it, you don't like Rowbotham. Stop doing this in every post, otherwise they are going to get punted to AR and warnings/bans will be given as needed.

I am exploring his theories, and explaining them as best i can, however if people wish to call him a doctor, without any evidence, then surely it is fair to refer to him as i think he is?

Maybe it would be better (and more equitable) for ALL posters people to refer to him as Rowbotham, or any of his other pseudonyms, to avoid arguments?

Point taken though, and I will toe the line, and hope others might respectfully do the same.