That's quite literally the opposite of how Russel's teapot works. Russel originally thought up that scenario to show how silly it is to put an unprovable idea f

That's quite literally the opposite of how Russel's teapot works. Russel originally thought up that scenario to show how silly it is to put an unprovable idea forward (specifically the existence of god, which Russel absolutely did not believe in) and expect another party to disprove it when doing so is impossible. Here in this thread you've put forward an unprovable idea and now expect others to disprove it, which is the exact scenario Russel criticizes. How on earth did you interpret it so wrongly that you came out with the exact opposite of the message that Russel intended?