That's just one step away from reasoning form a paradox and patting yourself on the back, how you have proved something (would the same argumentation be as enticing if it were based on misappropriation or misunderstanding like that of using "physics" for arguing for perpetuum mobile?).

My bigger gripe with your reasoning is that using topology 1 and stopping at that (i.e. there are no questions left) precludes (or makes intractable because of combinatorial explosion) reasoning by analogy (symmetry).

It's quite correct that people's misconceptions about physics aren't a good guide to reasoning about physics. But they can be useful evidence for reasoning about how people form conceptions.