[fastball]

Yes, the example assumes many things, but the falsifying test does not assume anything that the original theory does not.

You now seem to be arguing that all science must be done by proving things from first principles, which is of course absurd.

[d0mine]

no, providing an alternative explanation is not the same thing as proving from first principles.

Just look at various explanations for "dark matter" phenomena

[fastball]

Let me try another example: you claim that anyone who drinks a cup of X liquid will die. I drink your cup of liquid, and do not die. I have falsified your theory. I do not know why I did not die, I do not assume anything about why I did not die – I just didn't die. Theory falsified, no alternative theory proposed.

With regard to dark matter: yes there are many competing / mutually exclusive theories surrounding it, but that does not then mean in order to invalidate one of those theories you need to have picked a different one that you like better.

[d0mine]

Your examples assume the absolute and complete knowledge. It is not our world. There is no theory of everything (yet or ever).

If I would try to find and explain alternative hypotheses for your "human intuition/everyday experience " examples they would sound contrived this invalidating themselves. Imagine trying to explain quantum theory/general relativity to a Victorian and their counter-examples all use objects from their life.