That’s because we speak two different dialects, and we each use the same word to refer to different things.
On this side of the pond, everyone drives on the pavement.
…
…
…
That said, you chaps are dead wrong about “aluminium”. Humphrey Davys, the chemist who named it, did originally conceive of it as “aluminium”, but he used the term hypothetically, speaking of a nebulous concept of a material yet undiscovered, and used it in association with other such invented then-hypotheticals as “silicium”, “zirconium”, and “glucium”.
However, as his research continued and he managed to extract it in alloys, if not in pure form, he became convinced that it was in fact a distinct substance and not merely a hypothetical, and he published his findings having settled on the term “aluminum” instead.
When Davy’s 1812 book Chemical Philosophy came out, a political-literary journalist who reviewed it complained about “aluminum” on the grounds that “aluminium” sounded better - his exact quote:
“for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound.”
So some trumped up busy-body know it all took it upon himself to rename the element an actual chemist personally discovered to better suit his own personal whims.
Because after all, it’s only natural for all the elements to end in -ium! Like helium, or beryllium, or potassium, or sodium, or hydrogen…ium… and, err… platin…ium… and… uh… molybden…ium? Wait, hang on…
Ultimately, I imagine the version you prefer must boil down to whom you have greater respect for - the man of science who actually discovered the metal and named it “aluminum”, or the useless gobshite who felt obliged by personal aesthetic choice to try to endow it with what he felt was a catchier, more marketable rebranding instead.