Genady

A useful mental trick to qualitatively answer questions is exaggeration. Imagine the sticking out part as large as possible, e.g., the bases of the corners located at the equator, and the height equals the planet radius, so the center of the flat area is on the North Pole, and the northern hemisphere is almost entirely inside. The answers become quite clear, I think.

This is incorrect. Anything, true or false, can be derived from a false statement. See the truth table and the second dot here:

No, we do not.

I have a question that actually belongs to the psychology rather than relativity forum: Why do you even bother? IOW, why to feed the troll?

Several comments in this thread related the duty of care to the future of their children, grandchildren, etc. What about people who don't have children to care about? Do they just ignore the issues?

You see what I mean? I am from these people. In spite of the similarities in shape. There are also other categories that I am very different from.

DISAGREE!!! Not 'ultimately the same'. Rather, somewhat similar. Mostly, similar in shape, like the snowflakes. Unlike the snowflakes, we are very different inside. I trust what it says about us as much as I trust what it says about the origins of Earth, the origins of life, historical events, etc. *I don't open links without good reason.

OK, got it. However, if we all means every person, then I don't think this ("We all have a price for turning a blind eye") is correct. I don't know about this. I don't understand the grammar of this sentence. Sorry.

Ahh, I got the pun.

How can I know what the arguments are?

Thank you. Yes, this is clear. I want to point out that I did not ask, which other effect would make the planet spherical. My question was, and then,

Perhaps, I did not understand the question, then. Agree with this. It answered mine.

Yes, the resulting shape is not necessarily spherical, because of effects of other factors. The electric charge is a factor that make The gravity of the planet is also a factor that tends to make it spherical. In a situation that the planet is made, say, of a fluid or a thin dust, and it does not rotate, does not experience tides, etc., it will become spherical if electrically charged. Or it will fall apart, if the charge is too strong. However, material and shape of the parts, tectonic movement, etc., mentioned in the posts above, can make it take other shapes. Thus, "tend." The same with micelles, whose actual shape depends on other factors as well (my emphasis): I've asked about another physical effect that could affect the process described in OP. Electric charge would affect this process. Other effects, already mentioned, would too.

It is an answer to this ^^^ question. If a planet is electrically charged, all parts will push away from each other, and the planet will tend to be spherical.

Just electric charge. (ignore the BH part)

A hint:

They wouldn't. w, not c. edit: x-posted with @Lorentz Jr

I don't know how it relates to the previous exchange, or to the OP for that matter, but I'm ready to answer the questions: No, for a simple reason: I don't have a fb or any other social media account. The only online socializing I have is SFn.

I think they will not. It has already happened. Nothing in our environment moves faster than c/w/z, but until SR we believed that causality speed is unlimited.

Excuse my limitations, but I don't know what you mean in these statements.

Causality is not defined by the speed of light. It is defined/limited by a speed equal to some number, c, whose numerical value depends on the units of distance and time. Light propagates in vacuum with the same speed c, just as any massless particles, and gravitational waves. The causality and the speed of light in vacuum are correlated, but they do not cause each other.

About half a dozen. I am who I can be.

But close...

I would say this is more or less a correct statement. Where do you think it's wrong, @Genady? Have I missed something? I think that you, knowing what it should mean, interpret it as a more or less correct statement. I think that in QM a particle generally does not have a definite position, and this is not the same as locations extend through space. (Similarly, not to have a definite color is not the same as being rainbow-like.) OTOH, if being extended means having a wave function in position space, then this wave function is determined, and it does not have varying degrees of probabilities.* I know that you know all this - I try to explain why I see this statement... in fact, not even wrong. *unless it's a mixed state, but OP didn't mean this, I'm sure

Thank you. I have many choices.