There is only one flat earth map type. Measurements may be vary but it is close to be like the following map everytime:
this map is consistent, always valid and always controllable. all distances can be measured at any time.
and these maps below are globalist maps that are claimed to be of real measure. always different, dimensions and image are inconsistent. it can never be checked or confirmed in critical areas. if believing this is scientific, then you don't understand science at all.
If Earth was flat, that would be true, as there would be no need to have different maps. It would be a simple scaling down of Earth. There wouldn't be loads of map projections, there would only ever have been 1, with different regions of it shown.
But because Earth isn't flat, there are a multitude of maps, either honestly presented as projections of the globe, or dishonestly presented as a FE map.
That is because the curvature means you will need to distort Earth to map it.
There are multiple such ways to project a round surface onto a flat one.
The most common map projection is a part of the Mercator projection.
This first projects the round surface of Earth onto a cylinder and then unrolls that cylinder.
This keeps it locally accurate, where regardless of what point on the map you pick, the x and y scale will be the same for that point.
However it means as you move around the map the scale will vary.
This has the effect of significantly distorting the size of objects, making objects near the pole appear much larger than objects near the equator.
You can hypothetically have this projection centred anywhere, not just the equator, which would give rise to other such maps.
Other people prefer the area to be preserved, which then means at a given point the x and y scale will be different.
For flights and TV, azimuthal equidistant projections are better, as they show the direction and distance to the location accurately without needing to factor in distortion, but get other things distorted.
Some are more stylistic.
Some give up on trying to have it all connected as one and instead go for minimal distortion on the connected parts, like the dymaxion projection.
Those RE maps have known distortion. If you understand that, you can measure a distance on them, and compare between the different maps, and you will find they match. But not only do they match between the maps, they also match to reality.
So while the RE has many different projections, the underlying object it represents is the same and matches between these projections.
These different projections make perfect sense if Earth is round. But they make no sense at all if Earth is flat.
Meanwhile, the FE map you present has distance which can easily be measured, without any need for considering distortion, but it doesn't match reality.
Because of this, a map presented as a FE will have significant problems, and different projections move those problems around.
The map you present has a MASSIVE problem for the south. It cannot explain the south pole at all.
This leads you to outright reject reality, claiming flights don't exist and outright rejecting the south celestial pole.
This can be "solved" by some people with a south pole centred map, which simply pushes the problem to the north, or a map centred on the equator, which pushes the problem to the other side of the equator.
This leads to many different FE maps which should just be a scaled down version of Earth, which then DO NOT agree in any way.
That sure seems to indicate RE is right and FE is wrong.
That the RE maps, when the distortion is properly accounted for, are correct, while the multitude of FE maps are wrong.
On the one hand, so called science claims conservation of energy. On the other hand it claims absence created very large amonth of energy and matter.
Who claims that? Do you mean the dishonest theistic representations of the big bang?
Regardless, what does that have to do with the shape of Earth?