You presented your explanation as established fact . Read the article I linked properly - that explanation uses the word "might " in it's explanation that light traveling from different edges of a planet may due to a "zigzag" effect cancel refraction . That is theory because science cannot find a satisfactory explanation.
I think you read the article wrong. Here.
You might think of it as the light traveling a zig-zag path to our eyes, instead of the straight path the light would travel if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere.
She's not expressing doubt, this is a well understood phenomenon. She's simplifying it so it might be easier to understand to those unfamiliar with the concepts. She uses 'Might' three times in the article. That was the first time. Here's the second:
You might see planets twinkling if you spot them low in the sky. That’s because, in the direction of any horizon, you’re looking through more atmosphere than when you look overhead.
Interestingly points out a flaw in the claim that planets don't twinkle. The third:
Experienced observers often can, but, at first, if you can recognize a planet in some other way, you might notice the steadiness of its light by contrasting it to a nearby star.
Neat article. Thanks for posting it.
Addendum: missed one, and it looks like this is the one you were talking about.
But – while the light from one edge of a planet’s disk might be forced to “zig” one way – light from the opposite edge of the disk might be “zagging” in an opposite way. The zigs and zags of light from a planetary disk cancel each other out, and that’s why planets appear to shine steadily.
Although the use of the word 'might' still isn't used to cast doubt on the concept itself. The article even points out that planets can still twinkle if viewed closer to the horizon, meaning that sometimes the refraction is severe enough that they won't cancel each other out.