Seems to me that a theory which has had some 150 years to find supporting proof and has been unable to do so is just plain bunk.
A proof has identifiable parts: a formal field of discourse, a set of formal assumptions called axioms, in modern parlance, related to that discourse, an hypothesis to be demonstrated, and a tabulate of intermediate demonstrations called lemmas, chaining from the axioms to the hypothesis, to demonstrate it's truth within the field of discourse. Kindly identify for me the parts of the proof you have offered me so that I can verify them--the very reason we have proofs in the first place--so everybody plays with all their cards on the table.
What a deductive proof shows is that you understand the relevant inner workings of a thing. What an inductive so-called "proof" such as you are offering demonstrates is that things that happened yesterday and today will still happen the next day. This works really well--until the day it doesn't, at which point you realize that inductive proofs only prove that you're ignorant of what is going on, but in a very orderly way.