Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Testing LOT Theory

Westla’s comment on the LOT theory had me already pretty much convinced the LOT theory is flawed. Hard to not believe someone with a medical degree and knows what he’s talking about. This LOT simulator you made really shows me why it is flawed.

After seeing the LOT simulator I think to judge whether you can gain and how much from your ligs it’s better to check where you feel the tension in your ligs in relation to the pubic bone and/or to check the height difference between inner and outerpenis. Btw by using Pythagoras I can calculate I would gain 0.5” by stretching my ligs long enough to remove the s-curve so my inner and outerpenis are in one line. It would require a lengthening of my ligs by 1.2” which is not going to happen but it may be interesting for another model.

Just to clarify, I am not a physician.

ModestoMan has asked me to evaluate the simulator and comment, but I’ve been hesitant to do so. It doesn’t really matter how well a simulation it is (and it’s the most amazing piece of programming I’ve seen) I still don’t see how knowing the angle of one’s “inner penis” will actually help you hang. All you really need to know is the basics. Hang down to stress the ligs, straight out or up for the tunica. Giving the angle a number really won’t make much difference if you know these basics.

Loss Of Tugback (LOT) is an observable phenomenon; what it tells us is debatable.

I’m sure Modestoman, with his simulation, has made the whole subject much more understandable.


Feb 2004 BPEL 6.7" NBPEL ???? BPFSL ???? EG 5.65" Feb 2005 BPEL 7.1" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 6.9" EG 5.8" Feb 2006 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.6" EG 5.85" Feb 2007 BPEL 7.3" NBPEL 5.8" BPFSL 7.5" EG 5.9"


Last edited by mbuc : 04-05-2005 at .

Thanks Piet and WestLA,

My intentions in constructing the LOT Simulator have changed from, first, trying to see visually how LOT Theory works to, second, trying to prove or disprove the theory. A great many people give their LOT measurements a great deal of “weight” (ahem), and I’d like to know whether this is really proper.

The problem I see is that, whether people “believe in” LOT Theory seems to depend on whether they are disciples of Bib or of somebody else (like West). I’d like to take this issue out of the realm of whom one invests ones trust in and place it instead in an objective model. This is part of my goal of making PE more scientifically based than it is now.

If the model succeeds in proving LOT Theory, then people can be much more confident in using their LOTs to organize their hanging activities. If the model succeeds in disproving LOT Theory, people can stop wasting their time on LOT and focus on other indicia of lig versus tunica potential.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

I have to go with something Bib said a long time ago since I seem to be experiencing it myself. Bib said the best way to find your potential lig gain was to see what distance exists from where your penis exits now and the bottom of the pubic bone. I’ve made great gains doing lig work and my penis has moved down all the way to the bottom of the pubic bone. As a result and/or because of the shift I seem to no longer be making gains via lig work.

Modesto-

Preface: I apologize if the following has the flavor of a rant, that is not intended.

I must say, I think it is a mistake to have the mindset that you are trying to prove or disprove anything, LOT Theory included, for the sake of this discussion. IMO, a better mindset would be (as the title of this thread states) to “Test LOT Theory”, an approach that is predicated on the concept of construction of a model that corresponds to the male anatomy, thereby making the theory “testable” (at least for individuals…see below). IMO, this should be your goal and in fact, is consistent with your statement that your goal is “…making PE more scientifically based than it is now”. Having achieved that, the applicability of LOT Theory for the specific case of an individual (say a Thunder’s Place Member) can be evaluated by that individual for their specific case.

I think it is possible, indeed probable, based on the observed lack of consensus here at Thunder’s, that the applicability of LOT Theory varies (widely?) from individual to individual. I think, therefore, that the greatest utility of a model that you may develop would be provided in the facility of the model to accept user input that (to the best of the individuals ability) correspond to the physical geometry of the individual using the model. I applaud you for doing the work to have this capacity in your model. By this very facility, I am able to make the model correspond well or poorly with observations from my own experience. I think that the variability of male internal structures and the relative ignorance that we possess with respect to our individual internal structures renders the proving or disproving of LOT Theory in general (i.e for all males) an elusive siren and for individuals a pursuit with the potential for an equivocal finding.

Please understand, I want to encourage you! Mostly, I want to encourage you to construct a model that is consistent with the best information available with respect to male anatomy (I know you are in hot pursuit of said…good job!) and secondly, I would encourage you to not listen to the siren song of “proving/disproving” anything but rather to focus on the utility of the model to show what geometrical changes can be manifested to the model penis in response to modeled applied stresses within the (model defined and user defined) constraints of the (accurate! see my first encouragement) model.

I would imagine that you might consider me a “disciple” of Bigger based on my expressed respect for the man. I don’t consider myself such, rather I consider myself an independent thinker who values good information. By this standard, I appreciate what Bigger has contributed and respect him for it accordingly. In accordance with my values and your concept of a disciple, I am also a disciple of you, Westla (with whom I agree completely…”All you really need to know is the basics. Hang down to stress the ligs, straight out or up for the tunica”.) and many others who have contributed good information. I think that is the goal that that you should have in mind, to contribute good information.

Best Regards,

your disciple ;) ,

xeno

Thanks, Xeno! I agree that I should not get too caught up in proving or disproving anything, and should make my first priority to design a good model.

Although I’ve learned quite a bit about anatomy from this PE journey, I am far from being an expert in the subject. What I have to offer is programming skills and enough free time to put them to use! I am relying heavily on the rest of you to make sure I don’t make any stupid mistakes! This is why I’ve asked for WestLA’s seal of approval as well as Bib’s.

The next revision of the model will include many new adjustments that will allow one to simulate a wider range of configurations. Right now, the tricky part is making the simulation work with multiple lig bundles. I’ve realized that providing a single lig bundle is too limiting. Working out an algorithm for the positions of the different bundles is proving to be a challenge.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
I am relying heavily on the rest of you to make sure I don’t make any stupid mistakes! This is why I’ve asked for WestLA’s seal of approval as well as Bib’s.

Smart!

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
The next revision of the model will include many new adjustments that will allow one to simulate a wider range of configurations.

Sweet!

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Working out an algorithm for the positions of the different bundles is proving to be a challenge.

You can do it! Go man go, a generation of men awaits! No Pressure…

Keep going Modesto. You’re going to strike some gold.

I’m making slow but steady progress. I’m now simulating different sizes, shapes, and angles of pubic bones, and multiple lig bundles (10, to be precise). I’ve moved the anchor point to the ischiopubic ramus forward to agree with an anatomy reference I found that actually showed this.

Currently, I’m working out how the different bundles orient themselves with different tugging angles. I’ll get there eventually.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Thanks for the update and all your hard work.

I read through all this stuff, alot to digest….one question….

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
If the model succeeds in disproving LOT Theory, people can stop wasting their time on LOT and focus on other indicia of lig versus tunica potential.

which would be? what other indica of lig vs. tunica potential does the hanging community have to go on besides LOT theory?


"The world is a one way mirror. What they see, is what you see. What do you want people to see?" Women. If you're going to swing...swing for the fucking fences. "The reasonable man insists on adapting to the world. The unreasonable man persists on having the world adapt to him. Therefore, all progress in the world is made by the unreasonable man." "Success is not a surprise."

Originally Posted by bigblackstick
which would be? what other indica of lig vs. tunica potential does the hanging community have to go on besides LOT theory?

What about just starting targeting ligs till you stop gaining from it and then switch to tunica?

Originally Posted by bigblackstick
what other indica of lig vs. tunica potential does the hanging community have to go on besides LOT theory?

Damn! I almost got away with it. I was hoping no one would ask that question!

But now I see Piet has come to my rescue. :) Try low angles until they stop working, then switch to high ones.

Another idea is to use your hands to palpate your ligs. Pull your pecker out at 9:00 and feel for the suspensory ligmament. If it seems to be tight and attaches high on your pubic bone, then chances are you have some decent lig potential. However, if it seems loose and/or attaches low on your pubic bone, your lig potential may be more limited.


Enter your measurements in the PE Database.

Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Damn! I almost got away with it. I was hoping no one would ask that question!

But now I see Piet has come to my rescue. :) Try low angles until they stop working, then switch to high ones.

Another idea is to use your hands to palpate your ligs. Pull your pecker out at 9:00 and feel for the suspensory ligmament. If it seems to be tight and attaches high on your pubic bone, then chances are you have some decent lig potential. However, if it seems loose and/or attaches low on your pubic bone, your lig potential may be more limited.

But I have a low LOT….shoudl’nt my primary focus be OTS and SO?


"The world is a one way mirror. What they see, is what you see. What do you want people to see?" Women. If you're going to swing...swing for the fucking fences. "The reasonable man insists on adapting to the world. The unreasonable man persists on having the world adapt to him. Therefore, all progress in the world is made by the unreasonable man." "Success is not a surprise."

Top

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:10 PM.