"You clearly admit that dancers view the concept of balance differently so why do you insist on your definition in a forum for dancers where dance is being discussed. Dancers have very clearly chosen to use this word to convey a particular concept for good reason. When we dancers speak of balance we are describing a feeling."

The problem is that this feeling - which I summarize as never letting gravitiy force you to do something you didn't want to do - can only be judged subjectively. You can't tell if a dancer is balanced by looking at a picture of them, instead you have to know what they "wanted" to do. Though if they then appear alarmed by what happened, you can guess that it wasn't what they wanted.

"In dance you 'feel' balance. This is not a measurement or observation taken by an external observer outside the body itself as in a physics experiment."

Exactly - this sort of balance can't be judged by anyone not participating in it, because there is no objective standard for the balance.

However, within a given style of dance there are objective standards for the resulting movement - and so it is those to which we should turn out attention when we wish to make objective recommendations.

"If you want to discuss balance as a physicist then bugger-off to some forum for physicists and discuss it there."

Fine - but if you want to discuss dancing in a non-visual medium, shouldn't you confine your comments to things that can be literally expressed in words? Describing the quality of movement would be a good. Much better than making comments that are emotional valid but literally false, and attempting (as many others than you have) to claim that they are literally true.