Is saying "Woo!" makes apples falling from the sky?
This is obviously the wrong assumption, but most likely you will not be able to find any direct and trusted references that it does not. How the question of such kind should be answered? Argumentation about missing negative references is very frequent when defending various pseudo-scientific hypothesis.
Of course, such question could be closed. However it may exist a small opportunity that the direct evidence does exist somewhere and will emerge after a year or two. Still, should we just downvote/delete all answers claiming that the assumption unlikely to be correct?
One may start explaining about sound, gravity and and that apples unlikely to exist in the sky to start from. However it is always possible to say "this does not answer the question directly". Indeed, literally, it does not.
Or, similarly, if somebody asks "Do cactuses grow in Antarctica?", one may provide the scientific study about the distribution of cactus species and where they are likely to grow. However probably no any botanist ever wrote in the serious work "cactuses do not grow in Antarctica". Seems that providing some contextual information, even from the good sources, is not that this community wants.
If such questions should be edited/rephrased, how the question about falling apples should be rephrased? If such questions are invalid and should be closed, then under which criteria?