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