……or to dissipate large amounts of kinetic energy directed at them. I would love for someone to propose a physical model for the "bounce" mechanism they describe that does not rely on angular momentum.
I don't debate your mechanic and physics. I've no need. I can do things you admit you cannot do and now openly tell me I don't understand how --I- do them.
Then it will remain only with you and those you meet with -- because it is not amenable to communicaiton in deatils by other means. There are some means that provide that ability of critical detail. I don't actually know what you mean to do, or what you can do, nor you of me. I don't pretend otherwise, although I give you the benefit of reputation here. I don't do that. There is no point. I am not travelling on my reputation, as you do, nor could I, and so your attempt at dismissal of me on that basis is misplaced, even if it were sound.
When I say you are wrong on a mechanical understanding of what you describe you are doing or that we see on video, it is not a personal affront, nor a call for the defenders of your reputation to chime in a vouching contest to put me down. I am merely saying that there are very useful mechanical concepts for what is happening, and that concepts that come down the metaphorical road from a holistic tradition lose their utility to critique movement at a level of detail where mechanical principles are just getting going. Sometimes detail is not useful in training critique, but many times it can be.
There is a very great deal of information that can be observed and then communicated about this stuff in purely mechanical terms. Not all of it, surely, and not the most imporatn parts. But very great depths of detail. Close observation can only aid practice. Mechanics is really little more than very refined methods of observation and description. Really, it can lead to some pretty cool stuff. It lets people defy gravity with some clever shapes and moving air.
Our collective understanding of the principles involved in aikido and martial arts generally can be enlarged by the comparisons of different ideas about its functions in mechnical terms. You leave me thinking that for you there is nothing left to learn and nothing new to find in what you already know. I doubt that is true. I have lived and learned too long to believe that about anything I ever learned. Don't avoid it just because someone might be a little better at it to begin with. It's just time and experience, like anything else. Your observations have great value. The language to describe them more precisely can be learned.