[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

[Bored chemist]

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.

I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.

[Bored chemist]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

It generally flows towards equipartition.

[Bored chemist]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

It generally flows towards equipartition.

But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.

I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.

Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?

[Bored chemist]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?

It's still, as I said,  the conservation of energy.

Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.

But, as I said,  not for quantisation.

But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?
Do you have a learning disability?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?

Because you keep giving contradicting or circular answers.

[Bored chemist]

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.

Temperature isn't well defined. The state of the system is well defined.

This is not meant to be difficult.
You really should stop wasting time here and go and learn some physics.