is chi chi!
This is my first post, having read all yours, I feel yes I do have some input but plase go easy on me, I'm only human

writing what turned into an essay...
I was a development engineer in electronics for 30 years, always fascinated by the 'unexplained' in all areas, because after all, I worked in a discipline where the driving force is invisible 'electricity'.
All my work depended on understanding that electromagnetic 'model' and therefore how to use electronics as technology to 'do' things. But I never 'saw' electricity, electric current, the nearest is to that was getting a shock or three, or seeing sparks, and that honestly does not 'feel' like the effect of electrons just moving slightly along a conductor..
At age 35 or so I started to learn tai-chi, or rather, was shown the moves. With my physics knowledge I knew that there was no western equivalent science 'map' for chi.. after 7 years waving my arms about and doing what I was told in class.. I started to experience how to 'do' it.
What I want to say here is, the talk here about whether martial arts relies on 'tricks' is rather missing the point. These 'martial' arts were developed initially for defense, and most teaching's philosophies do say not to fight if one can avoid it. After all, if a large brick lands on your head it doesn't matter if you're a Master or not.
Its interesting that I was told early on, tai chi is the 'inner' art compared to karate an 'outer' art. In old times the participants were trained in the outer art first, the one which showed the physical elements so that people could compete. The inner art was taught much later, because one would have difficulty understanding the inner arts (more linked to a philosophy) before having mastered an outer art.
And this is why western teaching does not really follow the old traditions - often the Master will say, people don't want to learn something invisible (inner art) in the West, they are too used to external things, and very unused to working inside-to-out.
While chi is used in such things as karate, it is not always taught as such. Whereas for tai chi, which relies on that concept even if its called something else, is an inner art much more linked to 'not being there'. In other words, best way is to not get into a fight in the first place! Conserve chi
Its too easy to look at the finger and miss the moon.. in other words, sensibly one has to ask why these arts are so old, therefore what value do they have? The answer for me in 2007, is that they offset the modern western approach which won't accept anything as 'real' unless its been in a laboratory and tested. But on the other mind-hand, as scientists we can't accept that Physicists are not allowed to at least test what the Martial Arts people get up to.
But herein is the problem. I know from experience that science tests things based on the models it already has, or related to a new hypothesis. The old joke is, well if that's the case, how does science ever progress to a new theory.. its impossible because no-one will risk their necks with new ideas unless someone can create the killer experiment that supports the original guy that put the hypotheses forward. Circular.
And no-one can test for an unknown 'field' because all science is finally verified with reference to existing models. In other words, unless I already know what chi is (compared to existing things in the science model) I cannot design a gizmo to test for it because my gizmo is made from a kit of parts from the existent model. Which means quartz crystals on bits of wire are forbiddem scientifically
So acupuncture, chi ideas, antigravity, all the 'mad things' that science is unable to get a handle on, remain 'metaphysics' until someone grounds it.
In terms of chi work, the thing I most remember is someone 'doing the form' (which is a set of movements) about ten feet away behind my back. As I stood there I could feel waves of tingling moving around my body...
This is existential proof unable to be scientifically verified. But there is a vast class of events that we communally accept as 'true' without scientists having to agree. If there was an 'authorised map' for consciousness in textbooks, we would be able each to verify that A and B mind-things are real. As it is, we are in the stone age when it comes to anything consciousness-related.
If you expect 'chi' to be a 'field' in the electromagnetic sense of a field, I personally think that is unlikely. Since all the chi 'examples' are body-related, until we know how body and mind are related (if they are even separable one from the other) science is blind.
Your arm lifts, muscles tense, neourons presumably fire in the brain to tighten the muscles. But we are totally ignorant of the way mind appears to give us personality and consistency day to day - we have very few tools in that area to even fix people who 'go wrong' in the mind.
If you want to know what chi is, go learn the arts which use it, know existentially what chi 'does'. But as for the 'chi detecting machine', technologically until someone understands mind, I don't think we'll get very far with Physicists hats on.
And btw, I sit in both camps.. I can design you a light communication device, or go watch for unidentified lights in the sky. Thats where the problems start.. I've seen lights do things that science would say are not possible given the current models.
Someone said we are like blind men sitting on a cliff.. when we understand chi (experientially) and stop questioning if it exists we may get a bit further in the quest..
So what do I think chi is? I think its an emergent property of a system we are unaware of. And when i say 'we' I mean only the western mind set ruled by science. Many countries have no problem with such ideas, it is us (the new boys on the block) who seem to get taken aback by this stuff.
You don't have to know what water is scientifically, in order to have a drink.:zzz: