You are confounding 2 things here, theory and empirical testing.
Luminous Landscape presents empirical tests that are quite compelling.
He doesn't say "Assuming that........", but "Here is the methodology and
here are the results."
Once Gallileo conducted his test of gravity on falling bodies, no amount
of logical argument which disagreed with the results, no matter how much
it's proponents wished to believe it, was of any use or meaning.
Einstein's Theories of Relativity are some of the most powerful and
elegant theories about the nature and behavior of matter and energy ever
created. Nevertheless, physicists are constantly looking for empicical
ways to test them. I just read about another experiment a few weeks ago.
So far, the theories hold up, but one repeatable failure and into the
dustbin of science they go.
Theory cannot stand in the face of experience to the contrary.
Bumblebees fly around my yard all the time without the aid of
aeronautical engineers. Unless you can find a flaw or fakery in the
Luminous Landscape tests, theory avails nothing. The way it works is
that empirical tests prove theory to be fishy (or not), not the other
way around.
Moose
Albert wrote:
Assuming that the megapixel count doubled, and the 6 megapixel was
close or better then the 35mm, how does that translate to 11
megapixels of the new Canon being better then a 6x7, which is 4+ times
the size of a 35mm film?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|