>>14mathematically consistent proof of this to the larger scientific community
There is no Nobel prize in mathematics
I mistakenly assumed that you had the capacity to infer that the Nobel prize would evidently be in physics and that mathematical consistency would be required between your proposed model and your experimental proof that it is not continuous. It is not enough to show empirically that Newtonian gravity is untenable, e.g. precession of Mercury, someone also has to propose a mathematically consistent alternative. Then the only way you don't get a Nobel prize for that is if you already have one and they don't give you two in the same discipline.
dolt
The ironing.