It seems that there are two competing models here.
In model A, light is generated at the Sun, in the form of photons. These photons travel at c (299792458m/s) away from the Sun, and some of them arrive at the Earth, some eight and a half minutes later. A fraction of those might impinge upon the light sensitive chemicals in the retina, causing a photochemical reaction that initiates an ion cascade in the optic nerve. That cascade propogates along the nerve to the brain, at about 100m/s, arriving in the brain after about a millisecond; The brain interprets these signals, and forms the qualia we call "seeing the Sun".
No argument here. He gave a hypothetical example that distinguished between seeing each other after 8.5 minutes and seeing the Sun turned on instantly before we could see each other. And he gave reasons for this.
In model B, light is generated at the Sun, which is so large and so luminous that we form the qualia we call "seeing the Sun" instantly. However, the objects around us on Earth still have to wait for eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, and be reflected from them into our eyes, before we can see them.
Yes, that is true. He brought this up to show why this would occur. It is hypothetical because the light from the Sun is already here, and when night comes, it's not like the Sun is turned again. It's just on another side of the Earth as it spins.
The main question this raises, is fairly simple; What is the mechanism by which large luminous objects are detected instantly? It isn't the transmission of photons; They take time to arrive. So what is it? How large, and how luminous, must an object be to meet this criterion for instant seeing? Does the proposed mechanism also give an insight into the reason for, and magnitude of, these thresholds?
I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanism". Large luminous objects are detected instantly only if it is true that we are looking at the real object itself, not the image. If he is right, and we see the real deal (i.e., the object or event), not the image arriving, the object's wavelength would automatically be at the eye or we wouldn't see the object. Light is a necessary condition for sight but to conclude that it carries the "image" (or wavelength) to us, is erroneous. The reason he believed we are seeing in real time was due to how the brain and eyes work in relation to language. His reasoning was not from within the field of astronomy, which may allow us to see a situation from a different perspective.
The answer given so far is that "the wavength is at the eye", which is not so much an explanation of the mechanism, as it is a restatement of the problem - how did that "wavelength" get there? And what is a "wavelength" in this context? Photons have a wavelength (also known as a "colour", or "color" in the US), but photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, which we already know will take eight minutes.
The wavelength at the eye would be there whether it was from delayed vision or instant vision. You say that photons are not "at the eye" until they arrive, but this is not true since there is no arrival or travel time in real time vision. This is all due, once again, to how the eyes work as they begin to focus (in infancy) due to the desire to see as a result of input from the other senses. It has been taken for granted that these photons travel and finally arrive, which is logical, and are then chemically transduced to form an image in the visual cortex that we call sight. It is also true that there is a vital connection between the optic nerve and the brain (for without this connection we would be blind), but this does not rule out seeing the world as it is, not as it was. When scientists talk about seeing the past, they are not referring to the processing time of approximately a millisecond. This is not what is under debate.
The problem with model B is that it raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions, while not answering any questions at all. And it also predicts some interesting things which we should be able to exploit.
The implications of faster than light transmission of information are immense. They would effectively allow us to communicate with the future, and the consequences of that are huge. I recommend Asimov's 1948 paper on
The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, which describes a chemical process that achieves this information transmission, and his subsequent papers published between 1953 and 1973 that explore the implications and practical applications of such a process.
The claim of seeing in real time (or seeing what exists in the present) has nothing to do with faster than light transmission because it has nothing to do with travel time AT ALL. If it did, then the idea that faster than light transmission would be the only reasonable way for an image to get to the eye "instantly." Even then, it would be difficult to imagine.
In short, these implications are so profound that it is inconceivable that there would not be very clear evidence observable in reality, were these to exist. Indeed, the military applications alone would ensure that any such capability would be ruthlessly exploited.
It would, but at this point it sounds like science-fiction and has nothing to do with this claim in particular.
Yet no evidence whatsoever exists for this effect. If it did,
@peacegirl would be able to suggest an experiment or observation that anyone could repeat to convince themselves of the existence of this effect.
I hope you will read his demonstration, which does give you some idea as to his observations. He said that light travels; what he disagreed with is that the light waves bounce off of the object and travel through space/time. That is where his claim of efferent vision, where the brain looks through the eyes as a window, needs further exploration. To repeat: this does not leave any gaps between the object seen and the object's wavelength that has to be at the retina. It's not magic.
