In this scenario, a theory is out of sync with actual observations of the tides, and nothing is identified to help reconcile the theory with the observations. This isn’t analogous with the discovery of Neptune, where observations only initially call a theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.

In this scenario, an observation settles a question. There’s no theory that initially gets called into question and then later seems right again. Meanwhile, we’re looking for a scenario where an observation first calls a theory into question, the way observations of Uranus’s orbit called Newton’s laws into question. Some further observation is then needed (like the discovery of Neptune) in order to make the theory seem right again.

In this scenario, a theory is crafted and then supporting evidence is found. Alvarez’s theory is never called into question by any observations. But we’re looking for a scenario where observations do call a theory into question, up until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.

In this scenario, an observation leads to a new hypothesis. We’re looking for a scenario where observations initially call a certain theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again.

In this scenario, observations initially call a theory into question until some overlooked thing is discovered and accounted for, at which point the theory seems right again. This is analogous to the discovery of Neptune, where observations (of Uranus’s orbit) called a theory (Newton’s) into question until some overlooked thing (Neptune) was discovered and accounted for.