I sorta feel we're around the limits of what we can have as a dialogue until we get hands on time (or have mutual contacts vet what we're doing) - but I agree with you that there's a joining where the two natural forces of ground/gravity meet.
No one goes farther than they're willing and I won't ask it of you.
Part of the training is managing the intersection of those forces in you AND conditioning your body to more efficiently manage that intersection (and additional "inputs" - whether they be a weapon, other people, etc.).
If we go back to the "what" . ...
So there's an intersection and a natural power output - whatever you wanna call it. But at this point there's a conditioned trick for getting that output where you want it to go - hands, foot, head, through somebody else, out the end of a weapon, etc. This involves stretch and elasticity of the body as well around the management and delivery of that intersection - through the bones, ligaments and muscles acting as one unit.
I don't go into too much detail online around this, because there's some risks when you haven't been shown how to do it correctly - and I'm a firm believer in this area of the "it has to be felt" principle.
I am sensitive to that point, and give you credit for genuine concern for the unwitting.
You don't have to agree with my views on shear stress, moment and angular momentum transfer to know we share concerns about uninformed training. I don't promote a method, there are several of those -- I work on principles. Some wish to think me ivory tower, impractical, or substituting verbiage for training. Let them think so.
You mentioned weapons twice. Weapons are irreducible --there is no muscle, fascia, ligament, nervous connection or anything else, -- nothing but the connection itself. Weapons is where I began to see things that led me where I am. Clearing the line while in contact without lifting or moving the sword beforehand is the genesis of my thought. The "what" in the body that acts in the same way became my guide to finding things in the body that utilize, are sensitive to, and manipulate that "what."
You seem a practical man, and that is commendable, so you want a method that works. But the "why" of the "what" is my thing. And that demands a little more than just a method that gives some results -- and several do, and many are satisfied with that. My thing involves critically taking apart examples to find common threads that lead to consistent explanations that may (eventually) lead to better or more efficient results.
Demanding immediately applicable methods is somewhat beside the point -- at least for me, as I have no wish to supplant any that are out there. By analogy, without such an approach we would be left with the only uses of airflow being sailing ships and windmills -- but we have 747's and helicopters. I think the topic deserves more along those lines. What I have done so far makes all the training methods I was given in the last twenty-five years work FAR better over the last ten (and as I see it, more like they were intended). YMMV.
That's one reason why I don't "get out," apart from personal commitments -- I have confirmation that what I am working on is both useful and true. I can't ask for more than that to keep me going in this direction.