Atmospheric phenomenon are awesome.
So is throwing a label on something without having the proper data to back it up.
You mean like how you do everyday? But I guess that's irrelevant. Still you shouldn't jump to conclusions.
I didn't but you are about to:
Clearly the one on the right is a mirage.
Told you.
This isn't a new phenomena. If it wasn't a mirage, people all over the world would have seen it, not just in one spot. So the two idea's are A) the atmosphere made another sun appear for one location on the globe, or B) the atmosphere hid the second sun for everywhere else on the globe. I'll take the former
This does not logically follow and you know it. You also falsely ascribe only two hypothesis without seeing proper data to back up either. Scientific method fails again? perhaps.
It does, and you haven't shown that it doesn't. Those are not hypotheses, but postulates. Not understanding SM doesn't mean its false. This is only evidence to my previous claim that you either don't understand SM, or are purposefully confusing it to prove points.
How can two suns exist, if they are only seen in one location at one time?
Two explanations go as follows:
A) There is one sun. But once in a while in one location and in one moment, the atmosphere made it appear as though there are two.
B) There are two suns. Every moment and location besides this and similar sightings, something like the atmosphere is hiding the second sun.
Obviously if there is a second sun and nothing is hiding it, it should be visible from somewhere and sometime that is not the few locations and times that it has been. Namely, drawing a vector from the x,y point of the sun (theta, phi for RE), to the point on the earth, there should be a location on that vector*-1 where the two suns are.
My only assumptions were the known laws of optics. Never did I use the idea that there is one sun, to show that it was one sun.
Of course both A) and B) are possible, but A) is a simpler explanation, is more likely from a probability standpoint. It's far more likely that the Sun appeared do to atmospheric effects, in a few isolated incidents, than for it to have been hidden for the rest of the times and locations.
As a scientist you should pick the most likely conclusion based on the data, not the least likely one. My hypothesis may have been that there is one Sun, but I only used the fact that we normally
SEE one Sun to show it. There is a difference. This is another case, like many past, where someone here has claimed that Zeteticism is better than SM with the help of lies and/or logical fallacies.