Genady

The ball will behave like you describe, right. But the light rays will keep going straight and along the surface. So, if they just look at the structure, or make geometrical measurements, they will see that the top is flat. It would not be slopped toward the center.

They will see the same as from outside, but close-up. The walls will stick out from the ground at an angle, tilted backwards. The top surface will look flat. BTW, people on Earth can easily see its curvature by getting up to mountains, or by watching a ship disappearing behind the horizon, for example. I live on an island and the next island is about 60 km away. It is behind the horizon and not visible from the shore. But when I climb to our highest elevation, in a good weather, I see the island appearing into the view.

Can we care about and act for the Earth as a whole rather than about and for the people, current or future? Like, if I see a beautiful painting getting destroyed by a flood, I'd want to save the painting because it is so beautiful, not necessarily because of the future generations that might see it.

Half a cube. The southern hemisphere would still be a hemisphere.

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.