[Antithecystem]

The moon appears to be a nearly perfect counterpart to the sun.
They appear to be about the same size as one another and about the same distance from the earth.
If the sun is a big ball of fire, than perhaps the moon is a big ball of ice.
Does the moon emit its own light?
Does lunar light cool as sunlight warms?

The moon has a face just as earth is said to have a face when viewing it from space.
The moon has two primary colors, dark grey and white.
Perhaps the dark grey color represents liquid and one material and the white color a solid and another material, or vice versa.
Sometimes the moon changes color, occasionally it's red, blue or golden.
I wonder what these color changes represent?
Maybe the lunar weather is changing, or vegetation on the moon periodically goes through metamorphosis.

[Roger G]

The moon appears to be a nearly perfect counterpart to the sun.
They appear to be about the same size as one another and about the same distance from the earth.
If the sun is a big ball of fire, than perhaps the moon is a big ball of ice.
Does the moon emit its own light?
Does lunar light cool as sunlight warms?

The moon has a face just as earth is said to have a face when viewing it from space.
The moon has two primary colors, dark grey and white.
Perhaps the dark grey color represents liquid and one material and the white color a solid and another material, or vice versa.
Sometimes the moon changes color, occasionally it's red, blue or golden.
I wonder what these color changes represent?
Maybe the lunar weather is changing, or vegetation on the moon periodically goes through metamorphosis.

I would assume from your questions that you are either lacking in education at this time of you life due to a young age, or are not widely experienced in observation etc, so I will attempt to answer your questions for you.

The moon appears to be a nearly perfect counterpart to the sun. They appear to be about the same size as one another and about the same distance from the earth.
There is no similarity between the sun and moon at all apart from their apparent size in the sky and the fact that they both appear to be round. The sun is much further away, but appears a similar size because of it's vast distance from us compared to the moon. The Sun is about 92 million miles and the moon about 240,000 miles. The moon's diameter is about 2000 miles and the sun's is 400 times larger, but as the sun is also 400 times further away they look the same size from the earth.

If the sun is a big ball of fire, than perhaps the moon is a big ball of ice.
If the moon were ice, then spectral analysis would show it, but it is just a ball of rock and dust basically.

Does the moon emit its own light?
The moon reflects the light from the sun, which is why there is an eclipse when the sun, earth and moon line up and the earth blocks the light from the sun. You can also see that the moon doesn't emit it's own light when the sun is to one side of it so you only see part of the moon reflecting the sun's light.

Does lunar light cool as sunlight warms?
As the light from the moon is purely reflected it doesn't directly radiate heat, however the surface of the moon that is in sunlight will warm up.

The moon has a face just as earth is said to have a face when viewing it from space.
When we refer to the face of the moon or earth, we are not comparing it to a human face, but the side or 'Face' that we see, rather like 'the face of a cliff'. Sometimes the moon appears to have two eyes and a mouth during a full moon, but that is just the positioning of surface features.

The moon has two primary colors, dark grey and white.
Basically correct, although the white is more a lighter grey.

Perhaps the dark grey color represents liquid and one material and the white color a solid and another material, or vice versa.
It has been known for centuries since the first telescopes that there is no visible liquid on the surface, although the darker areas are known as Mare or Seas as some of the early observers thought they could be seas and named them as such. We still use the same names now and if you look at the moon through binoculars or telescope you can clearly see the darker areas and the craters on the moon caused by meteorite impacts.

Sometimes the moon changes color, occasionally it's red, blue or golden. I wonder what these color changes represent?
The moon itself doesn't change colour, it is the effects of us viewing it through the earth's atmosphere that makes it look different colours sometimes. So a reddish dust cloud in our atmosphere could make the moon appear red, but there are many other conditions that can produce different apparent changes but are mainly changes in our atmosphere.

Maybe the lunar weather is changing, or vegetation on the moon periodically goes through metamorphosis.
There is no weather on the moon as it has no atmosphere, for the same reason there is no vegetation.

I hope some of that helps you and I should add that my answers come from a round earthers perspective although I am quite sure that some but not all of them will be agreed with by flat earthers.

Roger

[ransom]

Roger's answer was from a round earth perspective which is incorrect. You should do some research about flat earth theory, there are lots of videos on youtube and articles online.

[Roger G]

Roger's answer was from a round earth perspective which is incorrect. You should do some research about flat earth theory, there are lots of videos on youtube and articles online.

I did mention that my answer was from a round earther point of view at the bottom of my post.

Rather than getting the OP to look at youtube videos which are often faked, why not do exactly as I did and give your own answers to his questions, he may not be as experienced at research as you and as he came here with his questions, would probably appreciate a balanced response and consideration. You may also then encourage him to further participate in the discussions here to find out more about flat earth views.

Thank you

[Tom Haws]

Roger's answer was from a round earth perspective which is incorrect. You should do some research about flat earth theory, there are lots of videos on youtube and articles online.

No Round Earth perspective or assumption is required (though Round Earth conclusion may happen along the way) to do the following:

1. Spectral analysis of the moon.
2. Telescope observations of the moon.
3. Observations about the moon emitting light.
4. Space flight to observe "Facy"-ness of earth.
5. Measurements of shadows and positions.

[Antithecystem]

@Roger

I would assume from your questions that you are either lacking in education at this time of you life due to a young age, or are not widely experienced in observation etc, so I will attempt to answer your questions for you.

This is incorrect, I'm familiar with much of what big science has to say about our solar, lunar or geosystem.
But if I never test any of their claims for myself, how do I know I'm not being duped?
Now I can't possibly test all of their claims, but the more I confirm, the more likely it is the rest of them are true.

Now you will undoubtedly object: well thousands of scientists have confirmed the claims of thousands of scientists.
But that itself is also a claim, maybe big science is more like a cryptoreligion, if you will, religion masquerading as science, when it comes to a few, some, many or most of its claims.
I'll never know for sure until I begin testing some things myself.

I already know a priori that big science is at least somewhat religious, corrupt, and mistaken, because human nature is somewhat religious, corrupt, and mistaken, no matter how many checks and balances are put in place, but I have no idea to what extent, especially when it comes to subjects like astronomy.
I'm already sure big science is very corrupt when it comes to health and medicine, through my own observations of my own body and people I've talked to.

There is no similarity between the sun and moon at all apart from their apparent size in the sky and the fact that they both appear to be round. The sun is much further away, but appears a similar size because of it's vast distance from us compared to the moon. The Sun is about 92 million miles and the moon about 240,000 miles. The moon's diameter is about 2000 miles and the sun's is 400 times larger, but as the sun is also 400 times further away they look the same size from the earth.

I have yet to see any proof for this claim.
And it seems more unlikely, but certainly not impossible, that two objects would appear to be the same size, yet actually be very different in size and distance.

If the moon were ice, then spectral analysis would show it, but it is just a ball of rock and dust basically.

I've yet to perform a spectral analysis on the moon.

The moon reflects the light from the sun, which is why there is an eclipse when the sun, earth and moon line up and the earth blocks the light from the sun. You can also see that the moon doesn't emit it's own light when the sun is to one side of it so you only see part of the moon reflecting the sun's light.

I've yet to observe this for myself.

When we refer to the face of the moon or earth, we are not comparing it to a human face, but the side or 'Face' that we see, rather like 'the face of a cliff'.

I know.

Sometimes the moon appears to have two eyes and a mouth during a full moon, but that is just the positioning of surface features.

It's been a while since I've looked at the moon through a telescope, but from what I remember, you're right about this.

Basically correct, although the white is more a lighter grey.

Looks more white to me.

It has been known for centuries since the first telescopes that there is no visible liquid on the surface, although the darker areas are known as Mare or Seas as some of the early observers thought they could be seas and named them as such. We still use the same names now and if you look at the moon through binoculars or telescope you can clearly see the darker areas and the craters on the moon caused by meteorite impacts.

It's been a while since I've looked at the moon through a telescope, but from what I remember, you're right about this.

The moon itself doesn't change colour, it is the effects of us viewing it through the earth's atmosphere that makes it look different colours sometimes. So a reddish dust cloud in our atmosphere could make the moon appear red, but there are many other conditions that can produce different apparent changes but are mainly changes in our atmosphere.

How could I confirm this for myself?
I can't view the moon from outside of our atmosphere.
Maybe red is the moons real color, and white is the aberration.
Everything could be a trick of light, I could be a trick of light, you could be.
I'm more inclined to trust my own eyes, unless I have a reason to doubt them.

You say the red color is due to a red dust cloud, but have you verified this for yourself?
Maybe the white color is due to a persistent white dust cloud, or a persistent layer of white dust in our atmosphere.

There is no weather on the moon as it has no atmosphere, for the same reason there is no vegetation.

I will admit the moon looks barren, and if it looks barren, it probably is, althou maybe the earth would also look barren when viewed from outer space.
I don't trust Nasa or other government space agencies to tell me what the earth looks like from outer space, or what the moon looks like from its surface.

Anyway, having nothing else to go on, I'm inclined to believe it's more barren than our earth, because of how it looks, but I'm far from certain, because I can't explore the moon for myself, nor can anyone almost, only a handful of people supposedly have, and they may be attempting to swindle us.
The more people from different walks of life can confirm something, the more I'm inclined to believe it.

I hope some of that helps you and I should add that my answers come from a round earthers perspective although I am quite sure that some but not all of them will be agreed with by flat earthers.

You see I'm not coming from a round earth, or flat earth perspective, I'm coming from a perspective of deep ignorance, and deep suspicion of mainstream institutions, but also of fringe institutions.
It's not that I'm more ignorant than you, in my estimation, it's that I've acknowledged my ignorance, where as you've yet to acknowledge yours.
Their claims are not my knowledge, if I believe in them, they're my faith, and if I don't believe in them, they're what I doubt.

[Roger G]

Hello again Antithecystem,

If I understand you correctly, your position is that you don't believe the reports of others regarding things that you haven't experienced for yourself. Well I have lived a lot longer than you and have experienced a lot more, so I have also learned that the best way to move forward is to learn from the experience of others and to build upon those experiences with your own explorations. If we only believed what we had experienced ourselves, then we would constantly reinvent things that had been invented thousands of times before. Sometimes groups of people need to get together and work in teams to develop ideas and investigate theories. They need to accept the work of others whilst monitoring the veracity of the experiments. Sometimes the equipment required is beyond the reach of individuals like yourself, so you gain an education in to the basics that allow to join one of these teams and work as part of a higher level of research and investigation.

Let me give you some simple examples of trusting the experience and investigations of others:-

1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?
2) Have you ever tried staring at the midday sun for 60 seconds with no eye protection to see if you go blind?
3) Have you thrust your hand into burning embers to see if they are hot?
4) Have you ever jumped off a cliff to see if you can fly?
5) Hydrochloric acid looks like water, have you tried drinking a glass to see what effect it has on you?

If you haven't tried any of those things, then you have no personal experience that any of them are harmful, so you either need to try them, or trust the experience of someone else. I don't know what your total life experiences are, but when you have lived as long and varied life as I have, come back and tell us what you have learned and more importantly what you have learned from those who went before and what you have PROVEN to be incorrect.

Roger

[Antithecystem]

@Roger

1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?

Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

I don't need to trust anyone to know getting hit by a car will injure me, I've been hit with smaller, slower moving objects than cars, and I got damaged, and I've seen people get hit by cars, and they got damaged, so I can infer what will in all likelihood happen to me.

All that being said, we have to balance faith or trust and doubt.
The more people claim something, from all walks of life, mainstream experts, alt experts and people in general, the more I've confirmed similar claims for myself, the less valid reasons I can think of for why the people making the claim may be exaggerating, lying or mistaken, and so forth, the more I'm inclined to believe the claim, even never having tested it myself.

It's not that I don't trust science at all, it's that I trust science a lot less than you, especially when it comes to say medicine.
But I've decided not to trust a single thing scientists have to say about the heavens until I can confirm it myself, as a hobby.
As far as I know, there's no way suspending judgment about the Noumea behind the Phenomena of the heavens can harm me in any way, and if almost everything they have claimed is correct, than big science has nothing to fear from people like me.

[devils advocate]

And it seems more unlikely, but certainly not impossible, that two objects would appear to be the same size, yet actually be very different in size and distance.

Please get a small kids toy car, drive to a parking place that has plenty of surrounding space, park your car and walk a few hundred metres away ensuring you can still your car. Hold up the toy car and compare the size. Repeat as you continue your walk. At some point on your journey the two cars will appear to be the same size. You could even place the toy car on the ground, lay down and look at them, they would look like two same sized cars parked next to each other.

Hope this helps clarify that aspect of your question? 

[Roger G]

@Roger

1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?

Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

I don't need to trust anyone to know getting hit by a car will injure me, I've been hit with smaller, slower moving objects than cars, and I got damaged, and I've seen people get hit by cars, and they got damaged, so I can infer what will in all likelihood happen to me.

All that being said, we have to balance faith or trust and doubt.
The more people claim something, from all walks of life, mainstream experts, alt experts and people in general, the more I've confirmed similar claims for myself, the less valid reasons I can think of for why the people making the claim may be exaggerating, lying or mistaken, and so forth, the more I'm inclined to believe the claim, even never having tested it myself.

It's not that I don't trust science at all, it's that I trust science a lot less than you, especially when it comes to say medicine.
But I've decided not to trust a single thing scientists have to say about the heavens until I can confirm it myself, as a hobby.
As far as I know, there's no way suspending judgment about the Noumea behind the Phenomena of the heavens can harm me in any way, and if almost everything they have claimed is correct, than big science has nothing to fear from people like me.

Does that mean we should trust stereotypes and superstitions, or everything philosophers, prophets and theologians, when they're in agreement, which's admittedly rare, *laughs, have to say, instead of critically examining them?
Does that mean a patient living in the 16th century should've trusted his doctor to administer bloodletting, or a patient living in the mid 20th century should've trusted his doctor administer electroshock treatment/lobotomies?

Philosophers, Theologians etc, are expressing opinions which differentiates them from scientists who are carrying out research and experiments to disprove or prove a hypothesis. Those experiments can be emulated to check their veracity. When the hypothesis is proven to be incorrect, then a new hypothesis will be established to cover the new findings. That's how science works and why old ideas get disguarded. Medicine is a little different in that there is more reliance on observing results rather than mathematics and physical experiments. Incorrect decisions may take decades to become apparent, but treatment is based on the best available information at the time, particularly where there is a life or death situation. Blood letting incidentally was frequently found to be successful and many of the successes would be due to similar factors involved with blood transfusions. In other cases though it was fatal and due to lack of understanding at the time.

Your problem is that you doubt even the most basic of things because you don't understand them. The whole point of an education is that you get to learn things that others have researched and learned before you. During your education, particularly the sciences, you will be shown and take part in experiments that demonstrate results that have been previously learned so that you can understand them. If you find areas of education that are of particular interest to you, you can go on to higher education in that field where you will learn more and experiment more. You could then follow through into university where you will get into much deeper understanding of what has gone before, including experimentation to prove it. You will though, at university, have access to much more expensive and sophisticated equipment and will be encouraged to take work experience placings in scientific establishments where you may well be experimenting on new hypothesis and theories to push the boundaries of knowledge ever further forward. If you are smart enough, you may even get to develop your own ideas and if they are worth investigating have your own team around you to research.

I don't know where you are in this chain of educational events, but would assume at the starting point, so there is no reason why you couldn't follow a course that would lead you to the answers you are looking for. You will NEVER get the answers by watching videos on YouTube and aligning yourself with conspiracy theorists.

Roger

[Antithecystem]

@Roger

Philosophers, Theologians etc, are expressing opinions which differentiates them from scientists who are carrying out research and experiments to disprove or prove a hypothesis.

Not all scientists have sufficiently tested their hypothesis, some have, some haven't, and as much as they've tested their hypothesis, they could always test them more.

Some theologians, and especially some philosophers, do test some of their theories against reality, they may not set up experiments, otherwise they'd be doing something more akin to science, but they do derive their arguments for their theories from their experience of the reality we're suppose to share.
And they do make arguments for their theories, so to say everything that happens outside of big scientific laboratories is equally untrustworthy, or everything that happens inside big scientific laboratories is equally trustworthy, is stretching it, philosophers and theologians typically employ more rigorous argumentation than people in general do.
And while scientists perhaps tend to agree more than philosophers and theologians do, their agreement is not absolute, just as the disagreement between philosophers and theologians is not absolute.

Alt scientists and individuals also do research and conduct experiments, and while much of this research and experimentation may not be as rigorous as big science, it's still better than no research and experimentation at all.
Big science hasn't tested everything common sense or our culture, customs tells us about the world, does that mean we should completely discount common sense and our culture, customs, while having faith in everything science says?
Should we completely discount our own experience and interpretation of that experience, or our intuition?

What I'm basically arguing for is degrees, rather than thinking of everything that happens in big science as fact, and everything that happens outside of big science as fiction or opinion, I say there are no facts, no certainties, only opinions, but not all opinions are equal, and sometimes, what happens outside of big science, can be right, and big science wrong, big science isn't always, or at all superior to everything that happens outside of it, so I say look at everything, trust in degrees and think for yourself.

The whole point of an education is that you get to learn things that others have researched and learned before you.

I'd like to see a world where big science has to compete more with alt, small science, and I want to be part of the new alt, small scientific communities.
I'm going to start from scratch, do my own science, and encourage others to do the same.
I see science as more subjective than you, I think there's thousands of ways science could've developed, that we winded up with the cosmology, medicine and technology that we did, is mostly happenstance, and I'd like to see science develop in totally different directions.
I think things are infinitely more ambiguous, open to interpretation and variation than you do.

[Roger G]

It seems from your posts that you will believe what you want to believe, based on your own interpretations, or take other people's totally unsubstantiated ideas and imaginative interpretations as acceptable alternatives. It takes far more thorough investigation to find out the real facts about the world about us, not just what imagination and fantasy excites us to believe. I would like to believe that UFOs are really extraterrestrial  space craft, and as such have spent a lifetime reading stories and reports, listening to fantastic claims, denials and conspiracy theories. I have seen and experienced unexplainable sights, but have yet to see any absolute evidence so far that UFOs are spaceships. I have trawled through countless videos on junk websites to see clearly misleading and misguided interpretations of perfectly ordinary things, but others will see what they desperately want to see without being objective or just denying the reasonable explanations of those who have greater experience.

It does take a huge amount of time and effort to get away from dreams and fantasy and get involved in real in depth research. Why not pick something that interests you and find out what experiments were carried out, who did the experiments, and read the actual documented results. Then compare the results and documents with other experiments carried out to check the veracity of the original experiments. For any serious hypothesis, there will be a paper trail that can be followed to check both methods and results. It will be a time consuming search but will give you a lot more real information than you will ever pick up on sites like this.

Roger