There is a clear semantic difference. And as a matter of fact some would claim that all understanding is metaphorical

You've found a wonderful nit to pick here. While you have a point re semantics, I still hold my original interpretation given the context on his statements. He does not believe chi is a real energy, he believes it is metaphorical.

That is not actually explaining why he is wrong

I don't have time to write dissertations on Daoist cosmology and internal power generation, especially when responding to comments that are clearly skeptical of these paradigms. The info is out there for those who care to follow up. Something like the Tai Chi Classics should suffice.

tangible can mean many things

The first definition that comes up in google: "perceptible by touch."

That is exactly the one I intended to use. Note that it conveys nothing about physical solidity, only perception by touch. Clearly this is different from metaphorical.

the term etheric makes little sense

So this word has clearly triggered you because of its ties to mysticism. Again, the first page of google yields the definition I intended, so I can't help but assume that usage is the prevailing one. It's also the most sensible interpretation is this context.

I get the feeling you are part of the camp that finds the mystical origins and nature of tai chi quite embarrassing -- a very common attitude among Westerners. This is the mentality toptomcat was operating under when he declared jin a balance trick.

The trouble is, you will never be able to fully shove Daoist mystical arts into the western scientific paradigm. At least not without serious loss. You are asking me to explain concepts like jin and chi in this paradigm, and when I explain them in the Daoist paradigm, you claim this is no explanation at all.

The Daoist paradigm must be used because the Western one has no place for chi -- it cannot accept it on any level beyond the metaphorical. As a result, to explain the workings of jin, it must resort to distortions (jin is a balance trick) that remove the tangible interpretation of chi.

But the result just doesn't work. You get a neutered version of tai chi that is more palatable to western sensibilities (anti-mysticism) but fails to convey the true nature of the art.

This is an argument that occurs again and again when these paradigms clash. I argue here because I believe it is vitally important to speak from the original Daoist paradigm. It is the paradigm that gave birth to these arts, and it is the one that must be adopted to cultivate one's art to the highest level.