> if we were to transport you there you would not recognize the various objects in visible light at all, too much time has passed.
I think this is an old interpretation of the speed of light and spacetime, since it describes travelling very far through space and also time. So it's more of a statement about the realities of space travel than what it would be like to be there now.
As you said, distance = time, so saying that too much time has passed is the same as saying that it's too distant to see, which is kind of beside the point.
I would say that what we see in the pictures really is the nebula as it exists now, but if you tried to travel there at near the speed of light, your speed through time would increase so much that you would see it rapidly change.
The real question is, what would you see if you were there now (at the time during which the shape of the nebula matches the photo).
I think this is an old interpretation of the speed of light and spacetime, since it describes travelling very far through space and also time. So it's more of a statement about the realities of space travel than what it would be like to be there now.
As you said, distance = time, so saying that too much time has passed is the same as saying that it's too distant to see, which is kind of beside the point.
I would say that what we see in the pictures really is the nebula as it exists now, but if you tried to travel there at near the speed of light, your speed through time would increase so much that you would see it rapidly change.
The real question is, what would you see if you were there now (at the time during which the shape of the nebula matches the photo).