I think you are confusing the mathematical model with reality. Circulation theory was developed to make the math conform more closely to the observed flow, not visa versa. Perfect fluid theory doesn’t predict lift (or drag) but if you add circulation to the rectilinear flow it quite closely conforms to experimental data. As far as the upwash ahead of the wing, it obviously exists, but when the downwash aft of the wing is considered, for a finite wing, the net motion of the air is downward.

If you have discovered a new physical principle so that a finite wing can create lift without producing a commensurate downwash, by all means share it with the industry. It could be of enormous benefit. ATC could reduce the spacing between aircraft, especially the jumbos, and it could double the capacity of the worlds busiest airports overnight at no cost. It would save millions of dollars and revolutionize the whole aircraft industry. Maybe you could patent it (I don’t think just building all aircraft with an infinite wing would work).

I would never dismiss theory as just a bunch of equations. The years I spent in industry as a working engineer after earning my degree more than fifty years ago has given me a respect for their usefulness in design and research. On the other hand, to deny the observed acceleration of the air as an integral part of understanding lift is to lose touch with reality. As acropilot_ty said, “both are true”. When designing wings ‘n things use the pressure stuff, but when flying, the momentum explanation makes the most sense. It’s not a matter of one being wrong and the other right. They are both valid. They are just two ways at looking at the same thing. They are two ends of the same rope.