I think your argument fails for a few reasons:<p>(1) It simply fails to understand the scientific method, which is empiricism, not mathematical&#x2F;logical proof. Scientific evidence is essentially failed disproof, not logical proof.<p>(2) It mischaracterizes the nature of the prediction, which includes not merely that <i>something</i> will be measured, but that a particular pattern will be measured.<p>(3) It proposes unspecified &quot;geophysical causes&quot; as an alternate explanation, but there was no pre-existing geophysical model which predicted the pattern observed. (Any after-the-fact geophysical -- or other -- alternative explanation which explains the observed pattern would also need to perform differently on some other test to be verifiably different, and then we could do the test to distinguish the source.)<p>(4) It misstates the reasoning to contrast it with other experiments, this is exactly &quot;when X, I will observe Y&quot; (where X is &quot;I construct detectors of a particular type in more than one location&quot; and Y is &quot;I will periodically detect particular patterns of signals on those detectors -- not just one of them alone -- which the model predicts will be produced by collisions of massive, distant objects.&quot;)