... what exactly is the point of trying to describe fundamentals of internal power generation, among other extremely difficult concepts, using scientific terminology in this medium?
Do you have a more likely forum in mind?
While Dan is simply inventing a new form of jargon (see post above) to deal with things that have a functional vocabulary in Non Western terms ("Asagao
" being a sterling example he has touched on and then ignored) -- his jargon, while in English, adds nothing to traditional terminology, and does not track actual terminology or concepts of Western mechanics.
One can legitimately dislike as a matter of taste the admittedly densely packed aspects of mechanical terms. But they have a singular advantage. They CAN BE unpacked independently of the ad hoc terminology being addressed by Dan.
Mechanical structure and function are properly described in their own easily verified terms. Once that is accomplished, you are not dependent on anything but your own powers of observation to note and correct errors from a valid mechanical principle. That may or may not be sufficient at any given point of a student's perceptual thresholds but at some point it becomes so -- and thus threatens those who would like to dictate -- literally-- the terms of discussion.
I cannot dictate principles of physics -- I can only suggest choices among the various useful conventions. If I get it wrong (and occasionally I have) I can be called on the point and I will correct it if the error is demonstrated.
A question: Who stands ready to correct (or even seriously question) Dan in HIS terms?
In the best case scenario, what do you think the people reading the material you write will gain from it? Just curious....
What they choose to -- or not as the case may be. I demand nothing but being clear in what what one means.
The question, in someone else's idiom that I have trained with, is what terminology belongs to the leaves and what belongs to the roots -- where the tree is now in a new soil.