>>3651627>>3651635>I agree with him and not youThat's because you *are* him, picrelated.
>anon seems to have provided plenty of scientific backgroundKek, broscience, Dunning Kruger and "dude just think about it logically bro" is all the """"scientific background"""" that you've provided, sprinkled with random test images that don't even support your point.
Meanwhile you've been shown actual, established equations that no optical system could ever violate, and you're arguing to the contrary.
To do so means you don't even understand the equations, not in the slightest, you're in complete loss at what they mean and unwilling to learn. Again, this is not an argument, science is not politics or opinions. There's correct and incorrect, and you're incorrect, simple as.
>You also haven't challenged him at all on the fact that lenses top out at 10lp/mm, whilst sensors have many times that, which to me definitely shows that sensors outresolve lenses,What is there to challenge in this nonsense? This statement is inane both in assumption and conclusion. Both those things are wrong. Sensors don't "top out" at 10lp/mm, what does that even mean? But even if they "topped out" at that, it doesn't follow that sensors outresolve lenses, this is an inane statement to even write.
So what am I supposed to challenge? Something that starts with a wrong assumption, uses wrong derivation and arrives to a false result?
If you start from a false statement (that you accept as true) you can prove anything. False==>False, same as with False==>True, is a logically true implication. And that's when you use an axiomatic logic system properly which you don't even do. There's nothing to "disprove" or "challenge". Take a Logic101 course, even humanities majors can do that.
>and Google agrees tooThis sums up the extent of your """"scientific background"""".
