Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings Mr Wadzilla, but it’s no more than a simple logic trick designed to demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate a small set of data to address your own agenda. It’s an illusion of truth …. nothing more.
That’s a bummer, man. We were close…….damn close.
So, the more a thing is thinner, the harder it becomes to deform. Are you going to change the Physics laws to defend your ideas, now?
marinera, if you had a latex square that was 4” x 4”, do you think you could stretch it over a dinner plate? Sure you could. How about a table? Well, possibly a small table. How about a soccer field? Not a chance.
Nothing can be stretched ‘infinitely.’ So, according to your “laws of physics,” you actually have a greater chance to further thicken a structure than to thin it; although, as it thickened it would offer more resistance of course.
About the F:L ratio, it’s the weaker of basis, IMO. Flaccid length and erected (or stretched) length aren’t homogeneous entity: flaccid length is influenced by many factors; I think FL means near nothing. When I drink a lot of coffee or alchool, in example, my fl is shorter than average: so coffee is augmenting elasticity of my penis? So coffe drinkers should have prodigious gains, in your model. Forget FL is my advice.
I have to disagree with you there….strongly.
I have repeatedly heard medical professionals, on the subject of penis size, claim that there’s greater variation in flaccid size than in erect. In other words, if you take the old claims (Kinsey) that 83% of all men are between 5-7”, that’s only a 2” range. But guys in that very same erect range might differ in flaccid from anywhere between 2, 2.5” to 5.5” or so - a range nearly double that of erect.
While I agree with you that many factors can affect flaccid size, and that it’s tough to pinpoint one’s flaccid with any real precision, I do believe in noting one’s “typical flaccid.” I think that’s fairly reliable.
Have you ever wondered how 2 guys with, say, exactly 6” erect might have “typical flaccid” sizes that can range anywhere from 2 to 5 inches, respectively? Furthermore, how is it possible that the “grower” might be able to triple his flaccid while the other guy (5”) grows only 20% to full erection?
Elasticity. It has nothing to do with blood flow. The “grower” has a lot more elasticity - which is why his flaccid can double in size to erection (some men can even triple in size). Yet another guy might always be 5” - no matter how flaccid; conversely, no matter how aroused he might become (a “blistering boner”), he never grows more than an inch to full erection (even with his gal’s finger wiggling up his ass).
(1) Elasticity can be an accurate predicter of rate of gains & possible total gains (within reason).
(2) Elasticity can, and does, change over the course of one’s PE career - indeed, it diminishes (as per the dB reference I mentioned earlier - in addition to my own experiences).
(3) As elasticity diminishes (into plasticity), size gains occur.
(4) This diminished elasticity is also made manifest in one’s growing “typical flaccid” size. In my case, my pre-PE winky was only 50% of my erection. At the endgame, it represented 60% of my erection. Considering that my erection was quite a bit larger at that point, yet the % went up, there was actually a disproportionately greater increase in my flaccid size.
(5) This simply cannot be attributed to “increased blood flow.” Consider that I went 3+ years off PE, cold turkey, without experiencing hardly any losses….no jelqing, no nothing. So, what the hell would have kept my blood flow “elevated” for those 3 years? In other words, how I did I manage to retain “increased blood flow” for 3+ years? Of course, I didn’t.
(6) After my size losses kicked in, I didn’t just lose flaccid in proportion to my erect losses, I lost a lot more. Indeed, I’m back down around 50% of my (now smaller) erection.
That relationship (F:E) is not only heavily represented in the dB here but, in my case, actually came around full circle. Hence, lil12big1’s words of desperation, “Once again, Mr Wadzilla, you have ably demonstrated why your “theory” falls flat on its face even after only cursory scrutiny…” could not be further from the truth.
It’s sad when a man gets “slam-dunked” in his face; it’s sadder yet when he doesn’t even realize it. :)