First Image from the James Webb telescope...

[lazybloke]

It's not really a fair comparision, because they are two different beasts. Hubble works in visible light, and JWST in infra red. So they're comparing an image where JWST picks out many objects that Hubble can only see dimly because they are so red shifted. There are probably a whole load of things that JWST isn't designed to do that Hubble does better (or maybe not I dunno).

There's a bit of overlap. JWST can also see about a third of visible wavelengths

 

[winjim]

The image is all warped and wobbly, needs some correction applied to it I think. I read somewhere that it's because the lens is too heavy or something? I don't see how they've spent all that time and money and come up with something that can't even take a straight up undistorted image. Somebody's cocked up somewhere.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The image is all warped and wobbly, needs some correction applied to it I think. I read somewhere that it's because the lens is too heavy or something? I don't see how they've spent all that time and money and come up with something that can't even take a straight up undistorted image. Somebody's cocked up somewhere.

Nope it's working exactly as designed. I think you're probably getting confused with Hubble which had an aberration in the mirror that needed corrective optics. Mind you that was a long time ago (early '90s)

 

[Profpointy]

This shows a good comparison with Hubble.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

This shows a good comparison with Hubble.

View attachment 652499

Why did they use a CD for Hubble?

 

[winjim]

Nope it's working exactly as designed. I think you're probably getting confused with Hubble which had an aberration in the mirror that needed corrective optics. Mind you that was a long time ago (early '90s)

No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.


See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.

 

[Dogtrousers]

No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.

No, I think what's confusing you is the term "gravitational lensing". The gravitational field of a very massive celestial object distorts light, effectively acting as a lens magnifying (and distorting) objects behind it. They chose this particular field of the sky for this very reason. Read a bit about it here https://esahubble.org/wordbank/gravitational-lensing/

Incidentally, the size of the field of view of this image is (so I've read) a patch of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length.

 

[Jody]

No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.


See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.

View attachment 652500

Gravity of the galaxies acting as a lense and warping space time rather than affecting the lense in JWST.

 

[winjim]

That can't be right, it's at a Lagrange point, it's not affected by gravity.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I has a quick google around and found a better article. https://www.republicworld.com/scien...hat-is-gravitational-lensing-articleshow.html @winjim - this is worth a read.

In short, the distortion that you are seeing is not nature distorted by a faulty telescope. But nature distorted by nature itself.

That can't be right, it's at a Lagrange point, it's not affected by gravity.

Now I know you're just being silly.

 

[winjim]

Now I know you're just being silly.

Indeed. But on a serious note, to see the effect of gravitational lensing like that, demonstrated so clearly, is a beautiful thing.

 

[Jody]

Indeed.

I should have known when you said look at the wibble wobble

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'll bet there are a ton of tinfoil hatters out there pointing at the wibble-wobble and complaining furiously. Especially now Biden has been involved which will make them hate it all the more. And those pointy bits. What's with the pointy bits?

And something something God.

 

[BoldonLad]

No, it's definitely the new image. Haven't you seen it? Parts of it are all over the place. Like I said, somebody said it's something to do with gravity affecting the lens, but it's out in space where there isn't any gravity. I'm sure they can do some digital correction to sort it out, save the entire mission from being a waste of money.


See, look at the distortion on that. Wibble wobble.

View attachment 652500

I thought there was Gravity, or at least Gravitational effect, even in Space, if not, what is the force which keeps the Earth spinning around the sun, and, the moon, spinning around the Earth? Do I need to read my "The Universe for Dummies" book again, more carefully this time?

 

[MontyVeda]

nil points for an informative thread title