[Bored chemist]

Temperature is some kind of concept like we have with time.
"Temp" if you refer to latin is somewhat refering to time..

No
"late Middle English: from French température or Latin temperatura, from temperare ‘restrain’. The word originally denoted the state of being tempered or mixed, later becoming synonymous with temperament. The modern sense dates from the late 17th century."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If the kinetic energy causes heat transfer,

It doesn't. Internal kinetic energy is heat. Temperature difference causes heat transfer.

If you want to be pedantic, it would read,
If the difference in the kinetic energy causes heat transfer, it's called internal kinetic energy. But in practice, the chance to have two objects with exactly the same amount of kinetic energy is almost zero. Especially if quantum fluctuation and cosmic rays are taken into account.

[alancalverd]

Which is why temperature is defined as a measure of average internal kinetic energy. 

And the fact that A has more internal kinetic energy per particle than B does not guarantee heat transfer. There must be some means of exchanging that kinetic energy.

But as you say, it is extremely difficult to establish thermal equilibrium in a simple experiment.

[Spring Theory]

Here are some good vids you can get educated on natural units:

You might do well to study them yourself and see where your assertion of 29 May is incorrect.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Boltzmann's Entropy Equation: A History from Clausius to Planck
Boltzmann's entropy formula was created by Max Planck in 1900!  So, why did Planck create this equation and how did it end up on Boltzmann's grave?  I used primary sources to explain the history of this famous and confusing equation. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How To Make Infrared Cooling Paint (Electricity Free Air Conditioning)

The experiments shown in this video can give us more complete picture about temperature. Although the actual temperature still needs confirmation from contacting sensors as pointed out  by some viewers.

[Bored chemist]

At about 08:28 he shows that he doesn't understand why the sunset is red.
:-)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At about 08:28 he shows that he doesn't understand why the sunset is red.
:-)

He said he could not get rid of (separate) the brown substance from the finish product.

[Bored chemist]

At about 08:28 he shows that he doesn't understand why the sunset is red.
:-)

He said he could not get rid of (separate) the brown substance from the finish product.

And there is no brown substance (any more than there is a "red" substance in the air which causes red sunsets.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And there is no brown substance (any more than there is a "red" substance in the air which causes red sunsets.

But there is substance that makes the sunset looks red, even if it only works for some angle.

[Bored chemist]

And there is no brown substance (any more than there is a "red" substance in the air which causes red sunsets.

But there is substance that makes the sunset looks red, even if it only works for some angle.

And that substance is air.
What colour is it?

The point is that he is looking at the effect of scattering by a white material, and saying there is something brown or yellow present.
That strongly signals that he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

[puppypower]

The Gibb's Free energy equation is G=H-TS , where G is the total free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in degrees K, and S is entropy.

If we solve for T, then T=(H-G)/S. Temperature is a measure of system free energy, divided by system entropy. The same amount of energy, inputted into different materials, can give different temperatures. This will be based on the entropy within each material. Temperature is not energy, alone.

The lower the system entropy, the higher the temperature for any energy input. The higher the system entropy the lower the temperature, with the same energy input.

Entropy was originally defined as lost energy. The less loss energy within the complexity of a dynamic system, the higher the temperature that will be measured for any energy input.  Some systems are better at losing energy, so they will appear cooling for the same energy input.

I like the Gibb's free energy equation since it is connected to applied science. Applied science is where you need to apply science, to make things in reality, that have to work in reality, or you will go out of business. Theoretical science is useful, but it does not have the same amount of social pressure.  It can look pretty and sit over there and everyone is happy with just that. Applied science has to deal with angry customers. It may not pretty enough to make up for any type of flaw. You need to make her perfect, instead of just pretty.

[Bored chemist]

I like the Gibb's free energy equation since it is connected to applied science.

Josiah Willard Gibbs was a theoretical physicist, not an applied one.
All applied science is based on theoretical science (it is the theoretical science which gets "applied" to things".

They are essentially the same thing.
Why do you keep posting nonsense?

[alancalverd]

All applied science is based on theoretical science

There is an admonitory adage in physics: "Thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics", and the history of science bears that out.

If you subscribe to the "observe - hypothesise - test" model of scientific method, observation and experiment always precede theory and take precedence over it..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Humans have been using fire long before they have a scientific model of fire. Boats have been widely used before Archimedes came up with theory of buoyancy. Arrows have been widely used before humans understand mechanics, gravity, and aerodynamic. 

[Bored chemist]

Humans have been using fire long before they have a scientific model of fire. Boats have been widely used before Archimedes came up with theory of buoyancy. Arrows have been widely used before humans understand mechanics, gravity, and aerodynamic. 

Do you have any 21st century examples?

[alancalverd]

Are you asking for an example of something people currently use but clearly don't understand?

I'm not sure that can ever be rigorously demonstrated in real time, but as far as I am concerned I type stuff into this machine and by magic, somebody, somewhere, disagrees. 

On a more mundane level, an apparently simple machine like a Boeing 747 contains so many functional elements that the manufacturers happily state that no single human knows how it works!  Sadly, it seems that nobody bothered to tell the pilots how to fly a 737MAX because everyone assumed it would work by itself.

[Bored chemist]

, but as far as I am concerned I type stuff into this machine and by magic, somebody, somewhere, disagrees. 

It doesn't require magic for you to be wrong.

[puppypower]

I like the Gibb's free energy equation since it is connected to applied science.

Josiah Willard Gibbs was a theoretical physicist, not an applied one.
All applied science is based on theoretical science (it is the theoretical science which gets "applied" to things".

They are essentially the same thing.
Why do you keep posting nonsense?

Not exactly. Theoretical science will more often than not, get published, for prestige and for all to see and appreciate. Applied science is more likely to have a restricted audience, through copyrights, patents, intellectual property rights, as well as classified information. Such science may even be stored behind security walls.

Much of applied science will not be easy to access, since these special applications of science, create practical advantages in reality, that equate to money and power. If you get a job with a company, you need to promise not to share their trade secrets; for your eyes only. You will not find it in the stacks.

If you had universal security Q-clearance for full access to all applied science, all over the world, you would see the limitations of the theoretical. Practical has more unique data and angles, that may not be shared since they give unique advantages. I am willing to share, not the secrets of others, but my own secret recipes. You may need some new background, to look at the same things.

You can go to university and get a graduate degree in food science based on the known science literature. But this alone will not allow you to infer the secret recipe for making Coke. This will need to be shared from the inside. But you will need to sign secrecy agreements, since this knowledge is unique and others cannot easily infer it with the freely published science.

Theoretical science is like a pretty girt that you can see from a distance or up close. Although you are free to look, she does not allow everyone the same intimacy. There is a deeper side to her, that only some get to see. Many are very protective of these fond memories.

[puppypower]

All applied science is based on theoretical science

There is an admonitory adage in physics: "Thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics", and the history of science bears that out.

If you subscribe to the "observe - hypothesise - test" model of scientific method, observation and experiment always precede theory and take precedence over it..

Applied science often begins by testing existing theory and new hypothesis. It is very rare that things work out as expected, with the first test. As problems appear and are overcome, the theory is modified at each iteration of experiments, until a new steady state is reached. Theoretical science may have to be modified to fit the data anomalies that keep coming. The final result is often protected, since the final application may have value in the free market.

I remember a development project I was given that involved developing a biological process, that could work under extreme circumstances. The  experts said it was not possible, based on the then current technology and theory. The final goal was to run an anaerobic experiment in a 2.5 million gallon open and leaky basin, with an initial composition that exceeded all known safe closed bio-reactors variable, by order of magnitude. My boss had faith in my ingenuity.

My first problem was I never took any biology courses in high school or  college. II like life but biology was to memory intensive and empirical for my tastes. I was good at organic chemistry, polymers, and engineering all of which are based on basic theory and ingenuity. So I had to teach myself a cram course in biology and bioreactors, and then follow my hunches in the lab, based on the POV of a biology outsider.

It turned out, I was a natural bacteria whisperer and the little bugs would help me out. I could get them go where they were not expected to go. To make a long story short, without any formal biology training, I was able to push the biology technology of the day, into the future.

My advantage was, I was not biased by the educational traditions that used a black box. My coursework as an engineer assumed something simple and more rational. When I looked at the project with my naive eyes, my bacteria were more robust than expected.

The final test of concept was my largest experiment of my career;  2.5 million gallons. It took 150 ton of powered limestone to neutralize the acid pond; caravan of dump trucks that I leased. I also gave my bacteria steak to eat, with a 5000 gallon tanker truck of 100% acetic acid. I used about 30 gallons of concentrated phosphoric acid for the phosphate needs of my bacteria's DNA and RNA. The little bugs were happy I am could see bioactivity the next day. It took about two weeks to really kick in. The little bugs even reduced heavy metal concentrations to discharge limits. This was part of a secondary need, I used some concentrated sulfuric acid that the bacteria would anaerobically reduce to sulfide to form Heavy metal sulfides. This cause the pond to stick like crap, so I used used a larger aerator/fountain, to beat in oxygen into the pond; shift to aerobic, until all the bacteria steak was also gone. Good observation, logic and ingenuity in the field can challenge theory based on consensus in a black box.

The tragic thing was, what should have been a good thing, made many people angry. It altered the priority of a parallel engineering project; monument, that now became obsolete. I felt political pressure afterwards and would eventually make me feel unwelcome and need to quit. I am less sensitive today. Now I fight and do not quit. Although I now try to be more diplomatic.

Temperature as a function of energy divided by entropy tells us how the energy will be distributed based on the entropic information connected to the state of the system. This allows for more complex modeling.

Picture a 1 mile cube in the atmosphere. This cube is gas that has clouds that phase separated from the oxygen and nitrogen and other trace gases like CO2. We are looking for the final temperature in the cube, based on adding X Kilojoules of solar energy to the cube.

Since entropy is not the same for the water cloud; gas predicate, as the rest of the gas solution, the movement to steady temperature will not be straight forward. We will get some cooler spots, that will then need a type of  secondary equilibration. This is not an ideal gas, but a mixture of gases and gas phase that can self segregate. My little equation can address this. The entropy data can be found in the CRC.