Dawid's Answer: Yes. If we observe that all 100 balls fall after 16,8 seconds, we face the question: should we infer that the known dome-physics fails to provide a complete description of the observed process?
We cannot answer this question within the framework of known dome-physics because the latter does not offer any probabilistic predictions on the issue.
Therefore, the data does not contradict our dome physics.
But raw enumerative induction forces us in a case as strong as the one described to view the statement that balls fall after 16,8 seconds as part of our body of knowledge about the world.
Thanks to Richard Dawid for supplying the above text. Email of December 2, 2018.
Norton's Answer: No. If the physics specified is the totality of the physics applicable, then to infer to this rule is to commit the dome analog of the gambler's fallacy.
If a roulette wheel is functioning as designed, successive outcomes are independent. A run of even 20 reds in a row does not authorize us to infer that the 21st outcome will be red. The probability of red remains one half.
Correspondingly, the physics of the dome assures us that past performance gives us no further information on the timing of spontaneous motion. All times are equally possible. That is all that can be known.