You had better stop with your extreme examples. I'm getting damn sick of you LYING about what I've said. If you can't argue without LIES then you aren't needed in this discussion. I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with simplification by omission, it's when we lie to our students that I object to, and I find it especially hilarious that you chose to defend lying to children by lying about what I've posted. One more lie about what I've said and we're done, completely, you will be beneath my contempt and no longer read or responded to. I do not tolerate liars.
There's nothing wrong with what we teach in high school about combustion, it's truthful, simple but all simplification is of omission. Acceptable. Doesn't follow the model of how we teach about the atom, to do that we'd have to teach phlogiston, and old formerly accepted theorom that we've since learned is 100% BS. BS doesn't belong in the high school class room, unless it's after the name of a highly over qualified teacher slumming it.
Huh? Combustion is taught using the simplifies Bohr model of the atom which you said was inaccurate and over-simplified. In order to understand combustion correctly, you have to understand the Schrodinger Wave theory and Eienstein's Conservation of Mass and Energy principles. Do you? You know, that old E=MC2 stuff? Mass defects? I am sure you understand all this, right?