Not my criteria. Bishop Berkeley, Sir Isaac, and one or two others you may have heard of.
I beg your pardon, but since when did Berkeley, Isaac Newton, et al demand that qi be defined in the (general) terms of physics? And to what degree of resolution? You're the one demanding certain levels of physics talk (which you seem to relish, the more complex you can make it) and you seem to want to constrain what is an acceptable level. None of those guys ever demanded the qi be defined by physics at all. As I noted several years ago, you could demand that riding a bicycle be confined to explicit physics in the areas you determine, and I would still suggest that it's a waste of time. Waste your own time with ki/qi and with bicycle-riding descriptions... no one else seems to be *demanding* how things are described, except for you.
There is nothing to arbitrate except the correspondence of physical principles to physical actions. If one understands the principle one can see the action that corresponds or does not and make one's own judgment.
As to Qi, the terms of Qi are this:
Yin qi condensing forms quiescent matter, earthly shapes. Yang qi, dispersing becomes invisibly active energy, heavenly phenomena, all cycling from one to the other.
Mass, velocity, cycling around a center or mean 中.
That is angular momentum -- when yang phase is dominant.
That is moment (potential for angular momentum) -- when yin phase is dominant.
What's your problem with the correspondence in the traditions here?
You just asserted a definition that is invalid and incomplete. These demands and assertions have gotten you nowhere in several years, but they have convinced the growing number of people that see/understand the effects that you have no idea of what you're talking about.