Originally Posted by ModestoMan
Hey Bugs. Not much time now, but please hang in there with me! I don’t mean to frustrate you. I frankly have never heard that Bib had a biology degree. Are you sure about that? You might want to go back and read his first thread introducing LOT Theory. I know he had input from a few guys on the forum and put together a spreadsheet. I don’t think it was any more elaborate than that. His ideas where quickly accepted, but in my opinion they was never subjected to any degree of scrutiny. People never really understood it and he never properly explained it. I never saw a physical model that clearly explained the idea.
The simulator was actually my attempt to create that physical model. I started the effort to prove the validity of LOT Theory. I was defending it. But after the model was complete I realized I was more confused than ever, because the model just didn’t seem to back up the theory.
The simulator did show something interesting, though. LOT is very sensitive to inner penis length, especially at the point where the end of the inner penis (the attachment point along the shaft in the model) moves from just behind the attachment point on the PS to just in front. Maybe you can play with the model and see what I mean.
This suggests that LOT may be extremely sensitive to small increases in size of the inner penis. As inner penis grows past a certain point, LOT appears to drop like a stone. Maybe there’s a basis there for reconciling some of Bib’s ideas with my observations from the model. I’ll have to study that some more before I can say anything definitive.
Yes I’m sure, it’s in one of the threads on his forum. I believe either on page 8 or 9. He mentions it, I was also suprised.
I’m almost afraid to read the theory placed here on this thread. I’ve gathered my intel from his website. I was confused at first, very confused, but I developed these long winded analogies and theories while Bib tapped his foot and kept correcting the different misconceptions.
I almost completely understood how the tissues, the fiberic tissues, would react to stress in detail. Almost! He went into very minute detail about how everything worked. However, Bib was frustrated and gave me an ultimatum. No more theories. From his perspective he’s already covered this material hundreds of times and I’m just not reading and or listening. Much like how I feel on this thread when explaining the theory.
At least, however I paraphrased and discussed trying to understand and assimilate the theory completely before I decided whether or not it was false. ARGH! I’m at a disadvantage here, most believe its a quack theory whereas I had known nothing and was eager to learn something.
However, I want to explore this and challenge it. I just do not feel that anyone has provided evidence to the contrary.
Crap lost my train of thought.
