Hello! My name is Jake, and I am currently working on my PhD in Physics at Purdue University.
Welcome! You sound like you could be ideal to join the discussion and study this subject.
I have [most] always viewed Flat Earthers as ignorant ... [but] perhaps they are just misinformed and/or confused.
That's progress, albeit tiny, in the right direction! Next step, actually considering and objectively evaluating some of these claims in earnest, accepting/recognizing they may well be possibilities and you may well be wrong currently. I'm sure I don't have to extoll to a physics phd the benefits of devotion to objectivity and the eschewing of bias whenever possible. Part of that is testing wild (even stupid, to a layman) things, don't you agree?
That being said, it’s understandable that there will be people who question things.
We call those people many names, one of which is scientist.
I respect everyone who has that drive to learn and seek truth.
Earnestly and with the intention to share, yes; I agree.
I would like to cover something interesting I heard when listening to a Flat Earth livestream.
Livestreams. Ooo boy. Fair enough, however you must realize that the views you heard may not be held by anyone here. The wiki here is an excellent place to begin getting a taste of the multitude of various views and ideas there are out there.
Flat earth research is a slightly different animal/subject than you're formally trained for. It has no colleges, no textbooks (yet, anyhow), no popes or deans. Flat earth researchers are mostly unaffiliated individuals with, often, wildly differing approaches, views, and conclusions on the subject. Autodidacticism is not optional, and strong independent research skills are required - which sadly, few have. You, I suspect - ought to have them in some abundance, at least the research ability.
I'm quite interested to hear your perspectives, seeing as gravitation (as taught and understood by the vast majority) is often erroneously seen as a "logical" reason the earth couldn't possibly be any other shape than the one they learned as children. Even if the earth was a sphere because gravity is real, or (were it true) because nature prefers spheres; The earth (like all physical objects) can only be determined to be spherical one way, and it isn't through persuasive argument (gum flapping) while sitting around. It's by rigorous and repeated measurement alone.
As I am writing my thesis on gravitation, I thought I might answer this question for you all in a way anyone can understand!
Cool. There is a big difference between knowing something extremely well and being able to share it with others, especially uninitiated/novices. I'm not sure how many people here are struggling with the concept of reference frames, but I know it is a lot.
Please note, I am going to do my best to explain this while relating to the beliefs of a Flat Earther and will omit as much math as I can.
Like most subjects, belief is across purposes. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific. The "best" researchers in this subject seek to know, and many - like myself (and possibly you as well?) also seek to identify and eliminate belief (a major source for bias) whenever possible.
One thing that the Flat Earthers agree on
"Flat earther" is more or less a derogatory that very few self-ascribe to. There is no consensus, or uniformity. There are even some who speculate that the world IS spherical, but much larger than we assume - as well as those that conclude (and sometimes measure!) the earth to be an inverted sphere that we live on the inside surface of. There is virtually nothing that every one of the individual researchers agree on, even with only minor majority, except perhaps that our conceptions of the worlds shape are or, at least, may be wrong.
Many flat earth researchers speculate that the planets are also flat, but this is due to rationalization/cognitive dissonance of remnant astronomical/cosmological mythology they haven't totally identified and excised (hopefully yet!). Many more speculate/deduce/conclude that there are no planets at all the way we and hollywood conceive and depict them.
Going on this same line of thought, we know that black holes exist because of the picture we have taken of one!
Ever wonder why that picture was so hyped? Do you know/ have a sense of how much it costs to hype a "picture" like that across the media channels in such a ubiquitous way? You, the curious scientist, may feel - of course that is front page news! But the rest of us, very much don't. Why was it so important to show these people this "picture"? Also, this is not the first "picture" touted of a black hole that made the rounds in a major way through the media outlets. There is no solid evidence that black holes do or can exist. I side with einstein on this one, and a select few other things.
then it must also be possible that there must be
Cool phrasing. It sounds like a provisional but is an absolute in disguise! It's possible that there must be - that's tasty rhetoric.
We can (and have) actually physically see that light can be manipulated by gravity.
No, this is a mistake/lie that they teach us. There is no experimental validation (scientific support) of that statement whatsoever. Experimentally, light's path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter. You may argue pedantically and irrelevantly for diffraction, but please do not unless you feel you must.
This attraction must therefore be due to the object at the center of the galaxy.
Incorrect. What you have there is merely a speculative hypothesis (at best), which now needs experimental validation or refutation. This is, fundamentally, why astronomy is largely pseudoscience mythology and not science. It (largely) cannot and does not adhere to the scientific method, and ergo is not a part of science.
We believe this to be a supermassive black hole
Correct! But don't you know that belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific? Why are you believing in things, and why are small children (most who will never be astronomers) being taught these beliefs as "facts" under the guise of science when they are not?
I tried my best to explain this in a way Flat Earthers could understand, sorry if some things seem confusing, it’s difficult to explain these things without math.
You'll be more effective if you answer questions you are asked, address/respond to content found here (not a random podcast with some people claiming - or you have mistaken - to speak for "flat earthers"), or pipe in to an existing conversation with a clarification / your perspective if you think it edifying and/or clarifying.
There is much I wish to discuss with you, on the other hand - but like you on the other side of the keyboard I simply do not know where to begin. Talk of gravitational lensing and black holes being a hoax is fun, and important, but somewhat tangential to the discussion at hand. At the end of the day it is a research challenge. Can you validate the existence of either of those things scientifically/experimentally, and can anyone? The answer to both questions is no, but you may not have put the research hours in to determine that adequately for yourself yet.
I think any discussion about science should start out with some agreement on functional definition of terms for the purposes of the discussion. I find that the working definitions for science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment are at the core of science and discussion thereof. I have found that most people, including many scientists, have incorrect or broken (not working) definitions and so I think we should start here - assuming you are interested in discussing this topic!
What are your (personal/working) definitions for the following words? I will include my, working/functional, definitions.
Science : That which adheres rigorously to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law which is established solely through rigorous and repeated measurement), and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces.
Scientific Method : (has many fringes, but the bones are)
1. Observe a phenomenon.
2. Hypothesize a cause for the observed phenomenon.
3. Experimentally validate, invalidate, or neither (when it really borks) the hypothesis.
Hypothesis : (There are MANY more criteria here for a VALID hypothesis, but this is the core)
A speculation on the cause of an observed phenomenon and the expected influence of manipulating that cause on the observed phenomenon for the sole purpose of being experimentally validated/refuted (ideally).
Experiment :
A procedure which validates or invalidates a hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between a hypothesized cause/IV/Independent Variable that you manipulate and the hypothesized effect/DV/Dependent Variable that you only monitor.
I have found that with the correct working definitions you can begin to discern science from pseudoscience (including the belief mentioned above) masquerading as it.