All the colors are false, it’s imaging inferred.
The wikipedia article does note that pseudo-color is an alternative, and that carries less generally negative connotation.
This is all nitpicking anyway, but thanks for the bit of education!
[added - although now I can pick at the definition of "true color", since it is based on the idea of how a color would appaer to a human viewer. We know pretty well that there's quite a variance of perception of color amongst humans, so there arguably is no "true color". There's just X% of people see this color. :) ]
Perhaps it's like most other things in life. In hindsight, we might have done it differently.
In this case, there are probably better, more descriptive (and less confusing) adjectives than "fictitious" which would succinctly describe a non-existent but perceived (or imagined) force.
Even so, I never visualized something pushing me back into the seat. I always visualized the seat pressing against me. After all, I didn't feel sensations on the front of my body when accelerating. The sensations are the same as if someone has come from behind and starting pushing you.
I’ve been unable to find any technical reports on the technique, but the gist of it is here: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/17/james-webb-space-telescope-...
No. There are basically two things influencing the colors of galaxies, their age (young ones have bright, blue stars, old ones are more red) and their distance. In the first "unveil" image of the gravitational lens, you can find several extremely red objects (that are completely absent in the HST images if you do a side by side comparison). These are likely extremely distant galaxies where the "blue"/"green" bands in the JWST image (and all the HST bands) are very faint because it falls in the extreme UV in the galaxy's rest wavelengths.
Think of it this way: If you take a picture from a mountain, things in the distance will look bluer than they are when you are close, but does this mean that all the pictures taken from mountaintops have "fake" colours that need to be corrected?
In this sense redshift is just another thing that makes things change colour as the distance increases.
Most stellar objects emit a whole bunch of wavelengths of light, some emit more IR than visible. Interstellar dust doesn't red shift light due to velocity but because the molecules absorb higher energy photons and re-emit lower energy photons.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/chemistry-colors-i...
Equating the two is possible, but lazy.
But if it seems to you too vague, then I can come to a point from a different angle: did you hear about tetrachromacy? "A study from 2010 actually suggests that a rare condition known as tetrachromacy exists in up to 12% of women in the world."[1] Don't you think that these women see colors in a "more true" way than other people? I personally think they are. It means, at least, that a more common way of a trichromacy is not the true way to see colors. It gives us not true colors, but some approximation which is very far from reality.
You mentioned "most humans" as a reference point, so probably you believe that the truth can be established by a voting. I do not. I know that the objective truth is an unattainable ideal, but I do not believe that the majority of votes would be enough to establish an acceptable approximation to the ideal. It needs something more than that.