[Scroogie]

Could someone explain this to me?
From the Wiki:
Q. If a cable company put down a cable its length would have to be longer than predicted (by round earth geometry) if the world were flat. If somebody put down a bunch of cables and found that they were longer than they'd expected, wouldn't they tell somebody?

A. But the cables are always longer than expected. It's just explained by underwater currents, soil irregularity, winds and errors in placement, et cetera. And somewhere in that is lost a mistake caused by a slight misunderstanding of the Earth's shape.

If a cable is laid on either a flat or a spherical earth the same length of cable is required to cover a given distance. Cables are laid from point A to point B in a straight line, the shortest distance between the two. Bend, or curve, the line in a single dimension and the distance remains the same, ergo the length of cable required remains the same. 100 miles on a flat surface=100 miles on a cylinder=100 miles on a sphere.

Why would the Wiki go to such pains to say that "But the cables are always longer than expected..."? Is it that the writer's mental picture of the geometry involved is flawed?

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom is mistaken on spherical geometry here. This is standard stuff; a thin string doesn't get shorter or longer because you  bend it. Of course, it's a glaring error.

It's also hypocritical, as another thread tried to use cable lengths to prove that the Earth couldn't be flat via multiple distance measurements. That was shot down with the idea that the amount of cable wasn't precise.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's also hypocritical, as another thread tried to use cable lengths to prove that the Earth couldn't be flat via multiple distance measurements. That was shot down with the idea that the amount of cable wasn't precise.

How exactly is it hypocritical to assert in both cases that it would be inconclusive because the lengths are never precise?

[Scroogie]

How exactly is it hypocritical to assert in both cases that it would be inconclusive because the lengths are never precise?

It's not - it IS, however, hypocritical to use a snippet of text to argue both sides of an argument. Moreover, that's not what was asserted in the instance I quoted. It asserted that the cables were "always longer than expected."

[Scroogie]

Tom is mistaken on spherical geometry here. This is standard stuff; a thin string doesn't get shorter or longer because you  bend it. Of course, it's a glaring error.

It's also hypocritical, as another thread tried to use cable lengths to prove that the Earth couldn't be flat via multiple distance measurements. That was shot down with the idea that the amount of cable wasn't precise.

I take it from your reply that Tom was the writer of the (or part of, or parts of) the Wiki. Did not know that. It would explain a lot.

[juner]

I take it from your reply that Tom was the writer of the (or part of, or parts of) the Wiki. Did not know that. It would explain a lot.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Last warning. Next one is a 3-day ban to review the rules.