I am happy to hear that you talked to “many sociologists” about OrgPhysics! Thank you!
It is no surprise to me that the reaction of most of them would be critical. If they were not, then Systems Theory as I practice it, and which is a part of Sociology, would have had a much stronger impact on the field than it has had so far. There is much to do.

In OrgPhysics, we use “Physics” as a metaphor: It refers to the fact that we can also observe natural laws of interaction at play that cannot be chosen. Social interactions follow quasi-physical laws. That´s the idea.

I agree with you that notions of “A.I.” or “social machines” are bogus, and quackery. But OrgPhysics is entirely different, in that it is highly plausible, coherent with different sciences, but that the dynamics are not well-understood by “practitioners”.

Interesting that you work with definitions “from the dictionary”.
That, in my opinion, will always bring about trouble. From systems theorists such as Niklas Luhmann I learned that “definitions are large useless”, and that we have to work with distinctions. It is an approach that I highly recommend to you as well.

I believe that if we want to advance the organizational sciences, we must work hard to use the differences that make a difference! And calling all kinds of effects “influence”, as it is popular these days, probably does not help with that.

Where can I find your book?