Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Exponential growth'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Info View Post

    Yet again, you twist words, and avoid the issue. The issue is not "models", not bacteria, not whether or not exponential growth actually exists. You are using straw man tactics. This is the fallback used by those on the run in their logic. The topics are exponential growth in human tissue and what that represents, and it's whether or not exponential growth in epidermal tissue exists as a normal, non pathological response when some guy tugs.

    Why not stay on topic. I'm assuming you know what the topic is, although I'm beginning to question your ability to read replies. Why not discuss this, rather than continue to emote. I know you're not a scientist, that's obvious, but try. If you try, you'll take the first step towards focused, rational, discourse, and.....believe it or not, towards Science itself. If you answer yet again in your emotional nonsense (I'd bet even you're getting tired of it), then you're done in this discussion, and I won't give you the respect of answering.
    Info is very smart. How can we tell? Like all geniuses, he tells us he's smart.

    As I said, Info, I'm thoroughly convinced that exponential growth is utterly impossible. You've shown me that-- not with thoroughly-researched and peer reviewed scientific papers, such as the one Tormod posted, but rather through simple logic. I still pale compared to your brilliance, but I do feel the osmosis in me. I am getting smarter through your example. Why, just the other day, inspired by this conversation, I was talking to a professor of evolutionary biology. I asked him, "Now I know nothing about biology [recall that Info said I admitted as much in these forums] , but if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" He just shook his head and walked away, completely dumbfounded by my ironclad, irrefutable logic. I said he was a moron and not a real scientist as he walked away and I suspect that he's since quit the profession, just as I've quit science thanks to Info's guidance. Why bother with experiment and modeling when simple logic is all we need to answer questions about the mysteries of the universe?

    For those who haven't followed our discussion, I'd like to illustrate our prior disagreement and highlight the absurdity of exponential growth. Take a look at the linear model of foreskin restoration, illustrated below:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	FR_linear.png
Views:	1
Size:	21.1 KB
ID:	20157


    Notice how simple and well-behaved this curve is. This is obviously a plausible model of foreskin restoration, one that Info and I-- fool that I was-- would agree on, even prior to his teaching me how stupid I was for believing in exponential growth.

    Now take a look at this model, which I once believed could represent the growth of human skin as a function of time:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	FR_exponential.png
Views:	1
Size:	21.0 KB
ID:	20158


    Look at how laughably absurd this graph is! HAHAHAHA! I mean, are we to believe this is some magic foreskin?! Observe how cancerous it is, growing uncontrollably with time. This couldn't possibly represent a biological process and I was an ignoramus for ever believing it could.

    Thank you once again, Info!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by salamander6773 View Post
      OK, you win! But my experience has shown a severe increase in results after hitting a certain level of stretchy skin. Just sayin'
      I don't see it as a matter of winning. I'm just here to point to what's known about general human physiology, and point to what little actually transfers from clinical skin expansion to tugging. Obviously some guys here are hanging on to their pet myth with both hands. And it's kinda humorous because they don't profit from a concept. So you have to wonder why they hold on so hard.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by eeeee View Post

        Info is very smart. How can we tell? Like all geniuses, he tells us he's smart.

        As I said, Info, I'm thoroughly convinced that exponential growth is utterly impossible. You've shown me that-- not with thoroughly-researched and peer reviewed scientific papers, such as the one Tormod posted, but rather through simple logic. I still pale compared to your brilliance, but I do feel the osmosis in me. I am getting smarter through your example. Why, just the other day, inspired by this conversation, I was talking to a professor of evolutionary biology. I asked him, "Now I know nothing about biology [recall that Info said I admitted as much in these forums] , but if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" He just shook his head and walked away, completely dumbfounded by my ironclad, irrefutable logic. I said he was a moron and not a real scientist as he walked away and I suspect that he's since quit the profession, just as I've quit science thanks to Info's guidance. Why bother with experiment and modeling when simple logic is all we need to answer questions about the mysteries of the universe?

        For those who haven't followed our discussion, I'd like to illustrate our prior disagreement and highlight the absurdity of exponential growth. Take a look at the linear model of foreskin restoration, illustrated below:
        Click image for larger version  Name:	FR_linear.png Views:	1 Size:	21.1 KB ID:	20157









        Notice how simple and well-behaved this curve is. This is obviously a plausible model of foreskin restoration, one that Info and I-- fool that I was-- would agree on, even prior to his teaching me how stupid I was for believing in exponential growth.

        Now take a look at this model, which I once believed could represent the growth of human skin as a function of time:
        Click image for larger version  Name:	FR_exponential.png Views:	1 Size:	21.0 KB ID:	20158









        Look at how laughably absurd this graph is! HAHAHAHA! I mean, are we to believe this is some magic foreskin?! Observe how cancerous it is, growing uncontrollably with time. This couldn't possibly represent a biological process and I was an ignoramus for ever believing it could.

        Thank you once again, Info!
        Again, attempted character assassination. You really are angry, aren't you, to a point where you don't mind diminishing yourself to all who read this. But that aside, let's look at what you're posted:

        1. Again you look at fact as personal. I wonder why. Fact, repeatedly observed fact, is no one's property, or identity. What I refer to is fact. Not mine, not one person's fact, but facts observed in clinical research, and in clinical practice. So I don't have to be "smart" as you put it, or a "genius", I just report general information, and observed clinical outcomes. I didn't dip into my "belief", or anything personal. Any science-based practitioner would refuse to do this, but somehow this is a foreign concept to you. Again, I wonder why. I mention this because this is your continued format. Emotion, not science.

        2. The observed result from any actual scientific research into human tissues, including Tormod's link (by the way), is that skin growth is non linear. It doesn't even stretch in a linear way. Non linear, in both normal epidermal maintenance, and non linear in the induced increase in mitotic activity from skin expansion. Go back and read the study. Where does it refer to "exponential growth" in normal tissue?

        3. So, moving on ... does "non linear" fall into the definition of exponential growth? No, actually it doesn't. Exponential growth in a general sense, and specifically in tissue growth, is constant growth. Constant is the opposite of non linear. Do human tissues grow constantly? No, they don't. They are organs, not math models, and they follow a programmed rate which is non linear. And that's first point you can't seem to understand. Normal tissue growth is non linear, and this is true because it follows in-place physiological rules, as well as responds to, or doesn't, variables, including tension, in our case. That response, in our case (induced mitotic activity) lags, takes its time, because it follows physiological rules, one of which is that the actual cells present are in various mitotic phases, where only some respond, not all. The ones that don't, can't. There is no "linear", no "constant" involved anywhere in this process.

        4. Now let's look at your "graphs" (taking long breath). Good examples of ... and I don't want to be insulting.....lower division (let's say) simpleness. Tell me, did Tormod's link use anything like these.....examples ,,, to show what they were referring to (which by the way was a set of issues totally removed from this thread's topic)? I think you know the answer. Somehow, though, you thought they were pertinent. But even that aside, it's difficult to understand what you are trying to depict with them. I'm not sure that you know what you were trying to depict. You got lost in your sarcasm. "Amount of skin" as one axis, and "time" as the other. Do you see a problem with that? I do. Let's see if you rise above your anger and sarcasm, your avoidance of the discussion, and find it. Here's a hint: a bias; an implied smooth constant, where there is none.

        5. Again, a constant rate of growth, based on the total volume of cells, is cancerous, if you are trying to depict that constant rate in normal tissue. Normal tissue is non linear, "not there" in a practical sense sometimes. not constant, or, said the other way, not exponential. To become constant, it breaks the rules. One simple definition of DISEASE is a tissue which has broken away from "the rules". A constant rate of growth is an abnormal rate of growth in tissues, be it benign or malignant . Of course, you are trying to belittle this fact (not my fact, Science's fact) by implying that a graph would itself physically look cancerous. This is another straw man argument, emotionally bordering on an appeal to cargo cult science. It's no argument at all. So who do you think is this "stupid" enough (to use your word, not mine) to accept this? Turns out you are belittling your fellow members if this was a serious appeal to them. If it wasn't, then why do it at all. It's wasted space. Why not just leave it, if you can't stay on topic, or, actually parse out points from that link you continue to refer to.

        But here's the mystery to me: what does it profit you to promote exponential growth, in tugging. Whataya get out of it? What does this restoration myth give you? It isn't your idea, it isn't Science's idea (in skin expansion), it certainly isn't my idea. So why all the emotion. Why the personal angst and acting-out in all this?
        Last edited by Reality; 11-13-2017, 09:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Info View Post

          Again, attempted character assassination. You really are angry, aren't you, to a point where you don't mind diminishing yourself to all who read this. But that aside, let's look at what you're posted:

          1. Again you look at fact as personal. I wonder why. Fact, repeatedly observed fact, is no one's property, or identity. What I refer to is fact. Not mine, not one person's fact, but facts observed in clinical research, and in clinical practice. So I don't have to be "smart" as you put it, or a "genius", I just report general information, and observed clinical outcomes. I didn't dip into my "belief", or anything personal. Any science-based practitioner would refuse to do this, but somehow this is a foreign concept to you. Again, I wonder why. I mention this because this is your continued format. Emotion, not science.

          2. The observed result from any actual scientific research into human tissues, including Tormod's link (by the way), is that skin growth is non linear. It doesn't even stretch in a linear way. Non linear, in both normal epidermal maintenance, and non linear in the induced increase in mitotic activity from skin expansion. Go back and read the study. Where does it refer to "exponential growth" in normal tissue?

          3. So, moving on ... does "non linear" fall into the definition of exponential growth? No, actually it doesn't. Exponential growth in a general sense, and specifically in tissue growth, is constant growth. Constant is the opposite of non linear. Do human tissues grow constantly? No, they don't. They are organs, not math models, and they follow a programmed rate which is non linear. And that's first point you can't seem to understand. Normal tissue growth is non linear, and this is true because it follows in-place physiological rules, as well as responds to, or doesn't, variables, including tension, in our case. That response, in our case (induced mitotic activity) lags, takes its time, because it follows physiological rules, one of which is that the actual cells present are in various mitotic phases, where only some respond, not all. The ones that don't, can't. There is no "linear", no "constant" involved anywhere in this process.

          4. Now let's look at your "graphs" (taking long breath). Good examples of ... and I don't want to be insulting.....lower division (let's say) simpleness. Tell me, did Tormod's link use anything like these.....examples ,,, to show what they were referring to (which by the way was a set of issues totally removed from this thread's topic)? I think you know the answer. Somehow, though, you thought they were pertinent. But even that aside, it's difficult to understand what you are trying to depict with them. I'm not sure that you know what you were trying to depict. You got lost in your sarcasm. "Amount of skin" as one axis, and "time" as the other. Do you see a problem with that? I do. Let's see if you rise above your anger and sarcasm, your avoidance of the discussion, and find it. Here's a hint: a bias; an implied smooth constant, where there is none.

          5. Again, a constant rate of growth, based on the total volume of cells, is cancerous, if you are trying to depict that constant rate in normal tissue. Normal tissue is non linear, "not there" in a practical sense sometimes. not constant, or, said the other way, not exponential. To become constant, it breaks the rules. One simple definition of DISEASE is a tissue which has broken away from "the rules". A constant rate of growth is an abnormal rate of growth in tissues, be it benign or malignant . Of course, you are trying to belittle this fact (not my fact, Science's fact) by implying that a graph would itself physically look cancerous. This is another straw man argument, emotionally bordering on an appeal to cargo cult science. It's no argument at all. So who do you think is this "stupid" enough (to use your word, not mine) to accept this? Turns out you are belittling your fellow members if this was a serious appeal to them. If it wasn't, then why do it at all. It's wasted space. Why not just leave it, if you can't stay on topic, or, actually parse out points from that link you continue to refer to.

          But here's the mystery to me: what does it profit you to promote exponential growth, in tugging. Whataya get out of it? What does this restoration myth give you? It isn't your idea, it isn't Science's idea (in skin expansion), it certainly isn't my idea. So why all the emotion. Why the personal angst and acting-out in all this?
          I'm in full agreement, yet again, Info. It's obvious how angry and emotional I am. I'm simply so frustrated that I am a pathetic peon compared to you.

          For example, you don't dip into "belief". You dip into "scientific fact". I can't do that and my envy just bubbles to the surface when you demonstrate that you can.

          Exponential growth is constant growth, as the second graph of my previous post demonstrates. (As an aside, you say you don't wish to be insulting in characterizing them as "lower division simpleness". No offense taken! I am a lower-division simpleton and I know you would never want to appear derisive to another member on this board.) Look at how the tissue continues to grow and grow and grow, even in the region I've labeled "restored", after which the restorer stops providing tension. Clearly, exponential growth is absurd.

          I've long given up on the plausibility of exponential growth, but you're right that I used to be a major proponent of it. Look back to my first post on this thread. I can't be bothered to look it up myself, but I think I said something to the effect of:

          Exponential growth is not only plausible, it is exactly the rate at which foreskin restoration proceeds. The rate is exponential and can remain exponential for as long as the restorer wishes (or longer!). I realize that this fits the definition of cancer, but I don't care. All I care about is that I'm right and Info, specifically, is wrong and I will defend the exponential growth model to my dying breath, simply to infuriate Info.
          I was so naïve then.

          Comment


          • #35
            Battle of the Titans!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
              Battle of the Titans!
              More like a regular guy with some experience, and a won't-discuss-guy-because-he can't-discuss-guy, who avoids the OP's question while while tossing all the straw man argument he can come up with. For me it's boring at this point; he has nothing. Including a basic understanding of evolution.

              But I'm interested, you actually see his posts as effective? Informative? Honest?

              Comment


              • #37
                Dunno. At this point I'm not reading the content, just the entertainment value. This forum has descended into nothing but a venue for the attention starved.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                  Dunno. At this point I'm not reading the content, just the entertainment value. This forum has descended into nothing but a venue for the attention starved.
                  There's always the possibility of discussion. Just not here.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Reality View Post

                    More like a regular guy with some experience, and a won't-discuss-guy-because-he can't-discuss-guy, who avoids the OP's question while while tossing all the straw man argument he can come up with. For me it's boring at this point; he has nothing. Including a basic understanding of evolution.

                    But I'm interested, you actually see his posts as effective? Informative? Honest?
                    Hey, nice name change!

                    You'll see that I addressed OP's question on the first page and then you and I came to an agreement that exponential growth can't possibly model foreskin restoration because it continues endlessly, as my second graph shows. No straw men, no misunderstanding of evolution here!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by eeeee View Post

                      Hey, nice name change!
                      Yeah, but not the right one. I can think of others that are far more suitable.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by parsecskin View Post

                        Yeah, but not the right one. I can think of others that are far more suitable.
                        I think it's the right one. Fantasy, bogus claims, and "I dunno" runs rampant around here. Somebody needs to step up. You've never seen that before from me. So let's try a little:

                        I can provide counterpoint from the real world. You know, like the "cold finger of Reality" (this finger right here). You would think, dude, that you'd promote reading everything you can get your hands on, and promote critical thinking (which takes actually reading posts). Not only are most of us here because somebody didn't critically think, you're here because you personally, as an adult, didn't think. Still at it, I see.

                        Most of us are here because of somebody else's mistake. You got no one but you to blame; started out in a better situation than us, and still fucked it up. Probably fuels your replies to any promotion of critical thinking. But it's not too late for ya. Well, it is if you want what you had, but you can help others from your experience. Gettin' the message, Feelin' Strong?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by eeeee View Post

                          Hey, nice name change!

                          You'll see that I addressed OP's question on the first page and then you and I came to an agreement that exponential growth can't possibly model foreskin restoration because it continues endlessly, as my second graph shows. No straw men, no misunderstanding of evolution here!
                          Saying you haven't used straw man argument doesn't make it go away, except in your own mind. That's reality. And you misunderstand the basics of evolution theory, if you think the presence of monkeys disproves that theory. I agree with the professor. Graph that.

                          And speaking of graphs, have you found your own flaw yet? It's right there in front of you. Here's another hint: data points. Those of us from Science-based practice encourage you to critically think about this while you're doing whatever you actually do.

                          Info held back from poking the clueless. Reality's gonna climb up your tutu (until Ron gets tired of it).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Reality View Post

                            I think it's the right one. Fantasy, bogus claims, and "I dunno" runs rampant around here. Somebody needs to step up. You've never seen that before from me...

                            Info held back from poking the clueless. Reality's gonna climb up your tutu (until Ron gets tired of it).
                            What a welcome change! As Info, you were never known for jumping into discussions and asserting your authority in matters of science, dismissing people who merely cite scientific articles and make simple claims.

                            And you misunderstand the basics of evolution theory, if you think the presence of monkeys disproves the theory.
                            Some would argue that the presence of cancer does not disprove the existence of exponential growth. But you and I know better!

                            Graph that, Mr Science.
                            Okay.

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	monkeys_evolution.png Views:	2 Size:	19.3 KB ID:	20194


                            Note that the trend is roughly exponential, disproving the theory. I'm planning on publishing soon.
                            Click image for larger version  Name:	monkeys_evolution.png Views:	2 Size:	19.3 KB ID:	20195

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I pump and have had real decent results with new coverage. I want a full hood though.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "Roughly exponential"! Makes me laugh. But your ego is bruised. You can't let it go. Is it your meds, aren't they working? Or is it the monkeys. It's probably them monkeys.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X