# Conjecture

In science and mathematics, the space of conjectures has been honored. Will conjectures be honored in this forum? " The physicist used his conjecture about subatomic particles to design an experiment." Many open conjectures have been challenging scientists and mathematicians for centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures

## Example: Conjecture: AWE will blossom one day to be more massive than towered wind energy machines.

A proof is not known by the present author for or against the above conjecture. Yet, a serious worker might rise up and conjecture as stated. The word conjecture needs not to be placed as a preamble to a conjecture. But a reply poster might wonder: did the poster make that statement as a conjecture or does she have proof of the statement (thus not conjecture)? People skilled in certain arts may have deep urges that well up into conjectures. Others might try to prove or disprove interesting conjectures; such effort may further a field of interest.

Once a statement that had been a conjecture has been proved or disproved, then the statement would no longer be a conjecture. Some conjectures have spurred thinkers to very valuable results.

Suppressing conjecturing in AWE might well damage AWE. I am concerned about the forumâ€™s policy note found: â€śThe burden of proof rests with the posterâ€ť. (italics added) Traditions in science and mathematics seemingly differ from that policy. Conjectures seem to invite proofs or disproofs from anyone in the game, not just the conjecture maker; spread the burden! If one reads a forum-posted conjecture, one may choose or not to prove or disprove the conjecture. Caution: Recall that history has seen â€śproofsâ€ť that were later found to be faulty to the point of not being a proof.

Close cousins? Predictions, guesses, estimates, gut beliefs, opinions, accusations, declarations,â€¦
Giving counterexample for a universal statement closes a matter. E.g. â€śAll wings are blue.â€ť Counterexampling with a show that a wing that is all black and not blue, would disprove the offered universal; then one may state well: â€śNot all wings are blue, as at least one wing is all black and not blue; see the example.â€ť

Consider surveying the forum for conjectures. Be ready to find a great many conjectures spicing forum posts.

Hi Joe,

As a mathematician you pose an interesting problem trying to link the domain of conjecture to that of AWE.

We know the famous Fermatâ€™s conjecture and how â€śafter 358 years of effort by mathematicians, the first successful proof was released in 1994 by Andrew Wiles,â€¦â€ť.

But although AWE field comprises scientific elements, it is not included as such in mathematics, but constitutes an area of â€‹â€‹research in energy, with a propensity to eventually become an industry sector. So the â€śhypothesisâ€ť term would be more appropriate. This term is used in The no market Hypothesis topic.

You also object the forum policy expressed in this way: â€śThe burden of proof rests with the posterâ€ť.
I think this might be in reply to a statement, not to an hypothesis.

Now, AWE has benefited from logistical, financial and intellectual support of a very large scale for several years. What you pose as a guess but which therefore seems to be a simple hypothesis, can have the beginning of an answer: it is now or never (at least in the near future).

Joe, you are a fine person to even suggest peopleâ€™s valid thoughts and even just questions should not be censored on an â€śopenâ€ť forum. I remember you deleting even questions I would ask: I was asking the question of what forum participantsâ€™ opinions were regarding the future success of a certain technology, which I believe was the â€śunderwater AWE systemâ€ť of Minesto, which you and Dave Santos had promoted as likely to succeed. You deleted the message, explaining something to the effect â€śI know where youâ€™re going with thatâ€ť. Yes, exactly. Where I was going was asking for conjectures of exactly the type you refer to in your post, above.
Your post does not mention your own refusal to allow people to even ask a question, let alone allow them to actually post â€śa conjectureâ€ť, such as "I believe Minesto will go nowhere because it exhibits several classic â€śsymptomsâ€ť such as raising lots of money without any verified product for sale at any scale, press-releases celebrating expenditures as opposed to accomplishments, the Saab â€śjet engineâ€ť expertise, as though expertise in another field automatically translates to success in a related but different field, etc.

Letâ€™s see, FloDesign, later called Ogin, exhibited similar symptoms before becoming one more laughingstock example of â€śThe Professor Crackpot Syndromeâ€ť in wind energy. But my posts expressing this conjecture, or even asking for othersâ€™ conjectures, were deleted by you, simply on the basis that you did not want to see the answers. Unbelievable!

My interpretation of your post is you are trying to defend â€śyour little buddyâ€ť Dave Santos from the censorship he has recently been experiencing here, which is part of you two typically â€śspeaking with one voiceâ€ť. Itâ€™s even been noticed here by others that posts ascribed to you sometimes show signs of having been written by him, such as sentence starting with reference to a forum participant, followed by the word â€śfailsâ€ťâ€¦

In my humble opinion, I think it is quite fitting that either or both of you two should be similarly censored, and experience just how it feels to have your valid thoughts squelched by someone placed in a position of some â€śauthorityâ€ť to do so. I think if you are going to post something like this, you should go back and think of all the times you have similarly censored people and apologize, or just admit you approve of censoring what a moderator simply does not agree with, possibly as a result of their ignorance and inexperience.

This is only one example of the myriad of supposed â€śreasonsâ€ť you gave for deleting my posts over the years. The reasoning was often quite bizarre, but it was always the same: Questioning your and Dave Santosâ€™ delusional fantasy-world was forbidden. Meanwhile the real world still awaits either of you producing any significant, measured electric power generation from a airborne apparatus, after 12 years of both of you posing as the main experts or even experts at all, in the field of AWE.
I do not think you have a leg to stand on in your post, above. In fact, to me, it reads like comedy of the tragic sort.

Thanks, Pierre. Of course, â€śconjectureâ€ť is not restricted to mathematical conjectures; conjectures may be stated in an field of thought; e.g., â€śI conjecture that octopuses and spiders share some things in common.â€ť Notice that even a simple statement in any discourse on any subject could be considered a conjecture by a person or set of persons; later the persons may discover that the statement in other groups of persons was not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of proved or disproved matter. It may be fine for a person to doubt the veracity of most any statement until that person finds cause to accept the statements.

A hypothesis is in the family of statements. Indeed, there are statements that are sub-characterized for having various specialized uses or purposes. Nevertheless, the specialized sorts of statements are still statements with a truth value of some sort: T or F or Maybe or Fuzzy T or Fuzzy F, etc. So, such applies to statements that are serving as hypotheses; such are open game for proving to be T or F or other. Some thinking systems restrict truth value for statements: T or F. Fuzzy logic goes into fuzzy matters and probabilities.

Sentences are not all statements. Non-statement sentences are interesting in discourse also. Exclamations, questions, â€¦ â€śHow are you? Wow!â€ť

The sample conjecture could be interpreted in different ways, Pierre. One might wonder what â€śmassiveâ€ť means in the statement offered. Indeed, one might wonder what is â€śAWEâ€ť in the conjecture; definitions are needed for clarity of statements. Those interested in some particular statement for its veracity may well need to do careful preliminary work over assumptions and definitions; not every reader will be on the same page as regards the meaning of the elements of a statement. Clarification work may be an important serious matter when statements are of special importance.

Doug, your policy-breaking phrases were causes of posts being off, not mere policy-respecting questions or field notes. You mixed severe breaks of Yahoo policies with good technical stuff. You were welcome to post sans the policy-break matters. So now, you seem to forget why some posts were blanked and choose to lament the good stuff mixed as offed; the good stuff is still wanted, but not the Yahoo-policy breaks that injure persons and children who were welcome to the old forum. Precise bringing forward of matter of your concern could be discussed in private email. Keep the Yahoo policies and post further in the two new AWE forums; ever welcome. Send non-policy-breaking AWE matter for posting: editor@upperwindpower.com

Policy-breaking question hypothetical example:
"Samoh, have you stopped beating your dog with your kite sticks?
Assume here that there had been no evidence that Samoh ever beat his dog with kite sticks. The question is not a statement. But the putting forth of the question could be an attack on a person by public association.

Doug, on Dec. 8, 2018, in your discourse you created a rhetorical phrase putting a phrase that I had not written: ""Yeah sure, Joe says â€śI know where youâ€™re going with thatâ€ť when,. â€śâ€ť And now you are apparently forgetting that you created that phrase rhetorically for me! Unfair playing, Doug. Form quote that I had not written; then use the formed quote as though you did not form the quote!

This is not accurate Joe. Those were just typical excuses you gave. The fact is, you were defending your fantasy world against any exposure to reality.

Valid reasons, not excuses. Your policy-keeping arguments against statements were wanted and enjoyed; I was sad that you mixed such with policy-breaking manner. Please post your policy-keeping arguments sans mix with policy-breaking matter; such then will fly high in the new forums for the world to enjoy. You are gladly welcomed to argue for or against any of my statements; and you are enjoyed for yourself however much you appreciate or not the various worlds I describe.

Note: Writing an argument does not mean that that argument is sound. An argument might convince oneself, but being convinced by oneâ€™s own argument still does not mean the argument is sound. Believing that one is making a sound argument does not mean that the argument is sound. A person being â€ścertainâ€ť of soundness, also does not mean any given argument is actually sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message facing I-message and you-statements may be part of the conjecture space. A sincere teller stating personal matter may even make a mistake about themselves.

Accusations and claims about another person are potential candidates for proving or disproving arguments. Making an accusation does not automatically mean that the accusation is true. It might be best to hold back on accusations until proof seems solidly available. And even then, it might be prudent not to publish accusations unless great goods are needed by the efforts. Even stating true matter about persons in inappropriate forums may do more harm than good.

Calumny and defamation are part of the big statement picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

A poster working with good intent to promote AWE might have a conjecture that a certain down-selected AWE technology wonâ€™t compete well in future AWE energy markets. The AWE community could be welcomed to disprove that conjecture or to prove the conjecture. The poster need not be the only one involved in the proving or disproving process. Johnny Appleseed could toss a seed out on the land; how the land receives and nurtures or not the seed would matter about final outcomes. Interesting discussions may arise from efforts to prove or to disprove an AWE conjecture. In the process lateral advances of understanding may occur.

An AWE worker may state a belief about something. Assume that the poster does believe as written. There are cautions here. Is the stating of a belief done for good purpose? Abuse is possible here. E.g., Some poster might write: â€śHey All, I believe that LTA will finally rule the day in AWE.â€ť That could be a true statement; that is, that poster really believes that LTA will finally rule the day in AWE. Being a true reporter of oneâ€™s beliefs does not mean that what is believed by that poster will come to actuality. And that poster need not give support for his or her belief. The expressing of the belief might be a very neat positive contribution to the AWE community; perhaps that expressed belief could spur profound discussions and analyses that end of benefiting the AWE world. Everyone interested in pros and cons of that expressed belief might add some neat gem that could be helpful in the LTA space or in non-LTA AWE spaces. But if a forum moderator disciplines the expressing of beliefs that are not backed up by the poster, then a potential deep disservice might unfold; the moderator or others might wish for supportive matter from the belief sharer, but such wish might not be satisfied; maybe the dissatisfaction could urge others to wrestle the belief in order to bless us all. Others might ask themselves, â€ścan I also come to believe that same belief, or can I find ways to argue a contrary to that expressed belief.â€ť

Doug, in old forum, questioning my shares and othersâ€™ shares was welcome; the how you mixed matters (policy-breaking flow) with legitimate questioning is what brought on moderation over some of your posts. As moderator, I had zero qualms about letting through your thoughts, theories, and opinions no matter how they aligned or not with my own thoughts and theories; such was not the problem: the problem was your policy-breaking text manner. I thrive on challenging AWE theories and thoughts.

If you have a few hours, here is some discussion about forum moderation after the rule was put into place:

Youâ€™re arguing from a non-existent or barely existent hypothetical.

The rule applies to things like this:

This is a definite statement of fact, without qualifiers, and nothing to back it up. Subsequent questioning of this reveals you are using your own definitions of AWE and commercial viability that are not shared by the vast majority of people in the field.

If you had instead written: I think AWE is already commercially viable (just look how well toy kites are selling).

It would probably not have triggered moderation.

Some more discussion on

So, may posters state conjectures in this forum without writing a research report or support essays attached to the conjecture? Just state a conjecture and then stand aside for the community to choose to wrestle with the conjecture or not?

Suppose we have the dying words of Wayne German who worked on AWE ideas the majority of his life. He comes to the forum and conjectures: â€śVertical blinds will win the day for AWE.â€ť He leaves without writing another word. Will moderation delete the Wayne German topic? Will moderation take the topic away from the public view?

Yes. To have a better chance of it staying up he should have then written something like: â€śI think vertical blinds will win the day for AWE.â€ť

Who writes something is irrelevant.

I think the following:
Of course, anything written by a person comes from their thinking process, it seems to me. I think, and then I write what I think. Please understand that all that I will ever write comes from the process of my thinking; thanks for understanding that â€śI think the followingâ€ť prefaces any and all sentences I write here and elsewhere.

The Reddit rules on historiansâ€¦
" No current events
To discourage off-topic discussions of current events, questions, answers and all other comments must be confined to events that happened 20 years ago or more". (italics added)

So, I am wondering if this present AWES forum in interested in forward-pressing matters that may be couched in conjectures. That historians deal seems not to match the kind of thing we might be doing; we might be wanting to write history, not just talk about what was. Maybe we want to scratch at the face of the unknown, push boundaries, make guesses and explore the guesses.

I personally would savor any AWE notes from Dave Culp or Wayne German, even if they attached not a single source note. Their persons have been embedded in AWE. It would be up to me what I did with their sharings; I would not obliterate their sharings for the basis of their not listing sources; their blossoming may come from their modified personsâ€¦ their thinking, their conjecturing, their statements. â€śWho writes something is irrelevant.â€ť is a slant that seems more narrow than necessary; but a forum may choose its own way. A creative person with gems for the world might not ever tell of â€śsourcesâ€ť for their creative leaps.

Joe I think you have brought up a good point, although as usual it falls into your typical tendency to fixate on word definitions. You go on and on and on saying simple things that could take a single sentence, so with your weird use of language I canâ€™t even read it - it just repels me. A full page of nothingess. Give it up dude! Using words like â€śsharesâ€ť to refer to peoplesâ€™ postings - give me a break. Canâ€™t you just write in plain English? Speaking of â€śplain Englishâ€ť, recall how you censored at least one post because I mentioned being able to â€śread plain Englishâ€ť with regard to peoplesâ€™ responses to some simple posting or written material? Your supposed â€śreasonâ€ť was it might offend someone who couldnâ€™t understand English. OMG if they canâ€™t understand English how could they even be reading the post? Oh yeah, minor details like thatâ€¦ Pulled right from some imagined manual for politically-correct-sounding lame excuses. How about when you tried to ban the term â€śProfessor Crackpotâ€ť, deleting any post using that term for a couple years or so, because â€śsome real professor might be offendedâ€ť!? Joe I could fill a book with the various excuses youâ€™ve given for 12 years of censorship, meanwhile, you and Dave Santos STILL have not introduced a proven significant technology despite all your combined posturing.
There is one and only one reason you censor posts: When people legitimately disagree with the often-wrong positions you and Dave Santos hold, especially if they show how silly your positions can be, you find reasons to censor their posts. Meanwhile nobody has posted more wrong things that you two. Santos is usually the one arguing with anything factual, simply based on me saying it, and you back him up with your censorship. This has been noted by many besides me.
You predictably havenâ€™t addressed my opening statement of how you censored my question of whether people thought you and Dave Santosâ€™ pet project (because it uses a kite!) Minesto, would succeed, saying â€śI know where youâ€™re going with thisâ€ť.
Wow, pretty sharp, Joe. And I knew where Minesto is still going today, even way back then. I can tell these destined-to-fail projects by the mere smell at this point. Theyâ€™re all the same. Empty promises of future grid-feed, always mysteriously citing â€ś500 kWâ€ť. Endless press releases over minor details like ordering a component, renting an office, the profusion of armies of smiling newbies in group-selfies,etc. It has a smell - a flavor - a tone - a rhythm. Just because you may be tone-deaf to it doesnâ€™t mean everyone else is. But you censored me just because you didnâ€™t want to hear the truth, and because I disagreed with one more of your fantasies.

The sharks or killer-whales, Orcas, whatever you want to call them, are Joe Faust and Dave Santos. You guys willingly let them in here - no barriers, no nothing. Now you are dealing with it on a daily basis.

Again, Doug, no; your on-topic thoughts were welcomed no matter how they aligned with othersâ€™ thoughts. Cutting weeds unfortunately moved the on-topic thoughts to your invited second tries sans the policy-breaking manners.

Joe my recollection is that was your exact words. If not, it is within a word or two, with the exact same meaning. Yes you should be embarrassed by it, now that you are protesting censorship. Iâ€™m reluctant to say it but you two have been playing this dishonest game of saying bizarre things then denying what you said for too many years. How many times did Dave Santos demand exact quotes with a reference, while we normal people protested that the search function on the Yahoo group was not working well, while Santos kept denying even that obvious point that anyone could see? I think it was years before he finally admitted the search function was almost nonfunctional. Sorry but my rule of thumb is if either of you guys say anything it is probably wrong.

Since this topic is not relevant to the wider AWE community, I have hidden it.

1 Like

Doug, I am not embarrassed that you create paper tigers for burning me. I just wish you did not create words I did not write and then use them as though I had written such. Such process seems to keep you from discerning the simple picture: off-topic policy-breaking matter mixed with your AWE matter ended up with the invite for you to put the AWE matter up sans the policy-breaking matter. Simple as that. No need to cry foul; you still have the option to post AWE matter in two new AWE forums. Easy does it. You need not align to any of my AWE ideas or definitions or assumptions; have your own set of assumptions, definitions, and thoughts; back them up or not with explanations and sources or not.

So, AWE conjectures are not relevant to the wider AWE community? The AWE literature is saturated with conjectures! Your very statement for hiding the topic is a conjecture, Windy_Skies. It may be that terrific AWE solutions will come from wrestling with conjectures. Maybe conjecture is relevant to the wider AWE community; shall we poll the wider AWE community to see how they value the tool of conjecture? Your conjecture might be proven true or false. Breakthroughs to innovation may come from facing daring conjectures. Wrestling only with what is already known might be a formula for missing a breakthrough. You might reconsider some day and unhide the topic on conjecture.

David Deamer: "Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture â€¦" (italics and bold added) He goes only to clarify that he sees a hypothesis as a special kind of conjecture, but a conjecture nevertheless. He writes how conjectures are important in science he considers. Someone steeped in AWE in some way may well up and share a conjecture which when faced may seed terrific AWE solutions, maybe way superior to competing AWE solutions.