Sourcing info to say you are incorrect isnt necessary. And I think you should simply re-read what the scientific process is....because you haven't shown any science here yet. You simply read some books (which most here have read and then some) and then tried to mold a definition of chi out of that material.

Which is fine of course. But not scientific in the least.

The fact that you call what you've stated scientific is rediculous. What measurements have you taken What repeatable results do you have

Dont try to make your opinions sound more credible by saying they are "scientific".

This is exactly why I said this should be approached in more of an anthropological matter...because it does contain spiritual/religious elements and science is unable to approach these.

__________________
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
-Zen proverb

From the pine tree
Learn of the pine tree.
And from the bamboo
of the bamboo
-Basho