CathInfo.com

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

Is this kind of photographs real or also CGI? I think I read that with a telescope that you can easily buy online you can see similar things too, maybe not as clear, but still visible.

Of course, I hold that they're fake.  I don't agree that you can take these types of images with a telescope, but we certainly have the technology to create them.  So it would all depend upon how much someone trusts NASA not to be lying.  I saw someone posting on a forum who claims to have expertise in astronomy (who is not a flat earther) who said he had been excited to see the images, but then was gravely disappointed that they seem to be fakes.  He said something about stars with different numbers of points in the same images.  He said that the number of points on starts is an artifact of how lenses work, and he said that it's impossible for the same telescope to create a single image with starts that have a variable number of points.  I can't confirm or deny this, but his comment was never addressed or refuted by the resident self-proclaimed astronomy expert on the forum.

In any case, what has long perplexed me about images of this kind.  Do you know the kind of bandwidth that would be required to download such HD images from "space" down to the earth?  This would be a challenge with a fiber connection, would probably take weeks across one of those old modems people used to have, and to get the kind of bandwidth required to transmit these images within less than a couple of months to me is simply incomprehensible from the distances they claim that Webb is from the earth.

Another thing that puzzles me.  They spent $10 billion on this thing. Reportedly it only has 68GB of onboard storage capacity.  That's far less than your average home laptop has (typically at least 250GB now).  Based on the Webb image/data sizes, that's enough for maybe 200 images before the internal storage would be full.  But how long does it take to transmit that much data from as far away as Webb allegedly is?  Even if it were possible to transmit that kind of data from that far away, the rate at which it could transmit it couldn't keep up with preventing the storage from getting full.  Finally, there's the claim of a 25.9 Gigahertz signal.  OK, but we're not beaming this across a house or even a couple houses.  Webb is allegedly a MILLIONS miles away.  It would take a long time for any given pixel to be transmitted a million miles, but how is that signal pinpointed to be received by a single receiver ... when both the telescope and the earth are allegedly in motion?  It's also well known that the higher Gigahertz signals, while they have higher bandwidth, also have LESS RANGE.  Just see it in your typical home WiFi router.  Those usually have an option of either 5 or 2.4 GHz.  5 gives you better bandwidth, but you have to be a lot closer to the WiFi antenna to use it because it has a poor range compared to the 2.4 GHz.  I simply don't see how it's possible to transmit that amount of data reliably from a million miles away, to a targeted receiver, on a NARROW band (required for higher data rates).  These aren't like radio signals where you could blanket many square miles with them.

Of course, I hold that they're fake.  I don't agree that you can take these types of images with a telescope, but we certainly have the technology to create them.  So it would all depend upon how much someone trusts NASA not to be lying.  I saw someone posting on a forum who claims to have expertise in astronomy (who is not a flat earther) who said he had been excited to see the images, but then was gravely disappointed that they seem to be fakes.  He said something about stars with different numbers of points in the same images.  He said that the number of points on starts is an artifact of how lenses work, and he said that it's impossible for the same telescope to create a single image with starts that have a variable number of points.  I can't confirm or deny this, but his comment was never addressed or refuted by the resident self-proclaimed astronomy expert on the forum.

In any case, what has long perplexed me about images of this kind.  Do you know the kind of bandwidth that would be required to download such HD images from "space" down to the earth?  This would be a challenge with a fiber connection, would probably take weeks across one of those old modems people used to have, and to get the kind of bandwidth required to transmit these images within less than a couple of months to me is simply incomprehensible from the distances they claim that Webb is from the earth.

Another thing that puzzles me.  They spent $10 billion on this thing. Reportedly it only has 68GB of onboard storage capacity.  That's far less than your average home laptop has (typically at least 250GB now).  Based on the Webb image/data sizes, that's enough for maybe 200 images before the internal storage would be full.  But how long does it take to transmit that much data from as far away as Webb allegedly is?  Even if it were possible to transmit that kind of data from that far away, the rate at which it could transmit it couldn't keep up with preventing the storage from getting full.  Finally, there's the claim of a 25.9 Gigahertz signal.  OK, but we're not beaming this across a house or even a couple houses.  Webb is allegedly a MILLIONS miles away.  It would take a long time for any given pixel to be transmitted a million miles, but how is that signal pinpointed to be received by a single receiver ... when both the telescope and the earth are allegedly in motion?  It's also well known that the higher Gigahertz signals, while they have higher bandwidth, also have LESS RANGE.  Just see it in your typical home WiFi router.  Those usually have an option of either 5 or 2.4 GHz.  5 gives you better bandwidth, but you have to be a lot closer to the WiFi antenna to use it because it has a poor range compared to the 2.4 GHz.  I simply don't see how it's possible to transmit that amount of data reliably from a million miles away, to a targeted receiver, on a NARROW band (required for higher data rates).  These aren't like radio signals where you could blanket many square miles with them.

Yeah, the 25.9ghz doesn't make sense, but our common 5.8ghz transmitters are most likely running round 5-200mW of power is my guess, and not often above 1-5 watts for special use, but they wouldn't want a lot of power going to a transmitter on such a telescope. I could see there being a different number of points on the stars if different onboard cameras were used that specialized in different wavelength ranges, but I don't get why there would be points anyway. Maybe points are better than a full halo. They are caused by an imperfectly round aperture: the edge of the aperture blades cause them, but it is possible to make curved blades to eliminate the points. I don't think the telescope really needs much storage space since it is supposed to send back images as soon as possible. If it is only taking deep space images with multi day exposures each, then there is plenty of time to transmit each picture.