Well I'm honestly glad you like my definition, but I'll insist that anyone who learns mechanics on a rigorous level, including the mathematics, is given the following basic definition for the energy ("work") expended in applying a force to an entity: $$W=\int \vec{F}\cdot\vec{\mathrm{d}x}$$. It's one of the first things they taught me in my first freshman mechanics course, and it says the same thing as my plain English definition, and then some. In fact, to be honest, the definition I gave you in English wasn't even as good as the mathematical one they taught me in my final year of junior high, or the slightly better one I was taught in my first year of high school.

This is one reason you simply can't skip the math if you want to learn the real science and precisely what it does and doesn't imply. It's a well-understood fact that nature at its fundamental level behaves according to consistent mathematical principles and patterns, and if you try to describe it in any other language, things get lost in the translation and you end up with all kinds of laymen arguing with each other based on their understanding of what their favourite pop scientist said on TV. Without the math, you have no means of evaluating the logical consistency of a physical theory and no means of determining precisely what happens when you conduct a thought experiment.

Now it's your turn. You promised you would try to answer my questions about your knowledge of Minkowski spacetime as it applies to light cones, and I'm still waiting on my own part.