Good thinking, Eric. However, there are two realms within science that should have distinct rules.

* Gold-standard, with repeatable results

* Silver-standard, with non-repeatable results

For gold-standard disciplines, one can for instance demand falsification for any proposal.

For silver-standard disciplines, one can demand it, but one should not do that.

Example is Archaeology in which finds are not repeatable themselves. The body of evidence is the body to work with. One cannot demand that a body of work gets repeated or is repeatable as a premise.

Same for the materialization process. It is not repeatable, and asking for falsification is then simply not smart.

I feel rather frustrated that scientists are demanding falsification for any proposal about the beginning of the materialization process. They accept their own most liked model, and they gag anyone proposing an alternate view.

https://fred-rick.medium.com/the-big-whisper-theory-for-dummies-38333ffabe0c

In this article, in interested, you can read how a proposal for an inward motion at the end of the prior state of the universe explains a lot about matter. Newton would have approved (What goes in, must come out), and we do see the outbound motion among matter.

It would change the paradigm because not everything of the prior state ended up becoming matter; just the damaged parts. Inward motions that do not stop do not damage everything involved; only parts.