The laws of Physics, in this universe, seem to be a constant at levels we can observe.
An alien from mars would see the same effects happen.
They might not, however, resolve things into the same terms and planes of reference.
A small example of this is the different way that we draw the force diagrams for propellors vs rotor blades.
Because the people who did the original work were not conversing, they resolved them differently.
That does not make either of them wrong.
You say "You're trying to 'bend' the way that airfoils are normally designed so as to fit your description. I would say 'yes' to what you said, but that's not the way that airfoils are designed! How does this prove your point? I don't think you understand why it's incorrect to describe the condition we're discussing in this thread the way you have."
No.
You can't have it both ways.
The laws of physics don't care that some people decided to say that the chord line stays contant when ailerons are moved purely for there own ease of discussion and calculation.
The simple fact is that if an engineer with no prior knowledge was asked to calculate the chord line of two wings, one with an upturned trailing edge, and one with a downturned trailing edge then he would give a different answer to each.
That is all an aileron is.
One of the basic tennets of any science is that it must be demonstrable and repeatable by different observers, not just ones primed by prior knowledge into saying a standard answer.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that aileron movement causes a change of chord line.
"A change in the chord line does not mean that there is a change in the angle of attack or a change in the Cl, or anything else. If 'Cl' was the same as 'chord line', it would be spelt this way: chord line."
If two wings which are mounted at the same angle of incidence on one fuselage have their chord lines differentially altered by the use of ailerons, then a change in the chord line does mean that there is a change in AoA.
This is all beside the point anyway.
Consider an aircraft with no ailerons in a climbing turn.
With no ailerons, both wings must have the same Cl and Area.
The outer wing will have greater airspeed and greater AoA, and the situation will be unstable, ie the angle of bank will increase.
Ailerons are required to reduce the lift on the outer wing, whether we call that by changing the Cl or by changing the AoA via the change in Chord line.
That is my point.
The fact that my terminology has not been precise is not helpfull, I admit, but that does not make my point invalid.
"I would never tell a student something that I know to be wrong. I have no respect for the attitude of, "I know this isn't totally correct but it makes sense and the correct way is far too complicated, so I'm going to teach it incorrectly". "
Think about it reasonably.
Every scientist in every field throughout history has always proved to be wrong.
Every single one.
Copernicus
Newton
Einstein
Closer to the truth than the previous generation perhaps, but basically just iterating closer to the truth.
That is not the same as "right"
To imagine that we are currently the generation that finally got everything correct is just a little unlikely, and frankly arrogant beyond belief.
We know that what we currently believe about aerodynamics is a reasonable approximation, and enough to be going on with, but if you think that the leading minds of our generation, let alone anybody chatting on here about what they read (from one of the many books which don't fully agree on the basics, let alone the minutia) know anything but an approximation then you are deluded.
What you teach your students is just an approximation. Get used to it.