[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This could proceed ad infinitum without a hint of progress.

It's a possibility, if we keep posting the same things over and over again without coming up with something new.
Another possibility is that everyone stop posting and just ignore this, which means that we agree to disagree.
Yet another possible outcome is someone will come up with a convincing argumentations which lead to some agreement.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I've measured voltages higher than the national standard, whilst working at a national standards lab!

The trick is to make a device that is modular and inherently linear and extendable, then calibrate the modules and add them together.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to work out how to do this with temperature. Hint: Johnson noise is good to the boiling point of carbon, and a buddy of mine uses spectroscopy to measure the temperature of plasmas with a diffraction grating traceable to common mechanical standards.

Have you measured temperature of sun's corona?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-s-parker-solar-probe-and-the-curious-case-of-the-hot-corona

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the tenuous, outermost layer of the solar atmosphere — spike upwards of 2 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics; scientists call it the coronal heating problem. A new, landmark mission, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe — scheduled to launch no earlier than Aug. 11, 2018 — will fly through the corona itself, seeking clues to its behavior and offering the chance for scientists to solve this mystery.

Not until 70 years later did a Swedish physicist discover the element responsible for the emission is iron, superheated to the point that it’s ionized 13 times, leaving it with just half the electrons of a normal atom of iron. And therein lies the problem: Scientists calculated that such high levels of ionization would require coronal temperatures around 2 million degrees Fahrenheit — nearly 200 times hotter than the surface.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/traveling-to-the-sun-why-won-t-parker-solar-probe-melt

Nasa
Search NASA.gov
NASA TV
MORE STORIES
Parker Solar ProbeIllustration of Parker Solar Probe circling the Sun.
Jul 20, 2018
Traveling to the Sun: Why Won’t Parker Solar Probe Melt?
This summer, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe will launch to travel closer to the Sun, deeper into the solar atmosphere, than any mission before it. If Earth was at one end of a yard-stick and the Sun on the other, Parker Solar Probe will make it to within four inches of the solar surface.

Inside that part of the solar atmosphere, a region known as the corona, Parker Solar Probe will provide unprecedented observations of what drives the wide range of particles, energy and heat that course through the region — flinging particles outward into the solar system and far past Neptune.

Inside the corona, it’s also, of course, unimaginably hot. The spacecraft will travel through material with temperatures greater than a million degrees Fahrenheit while being bombarded with intense sun light.

So, why won’t it melt?

Parker Solar Probe has been designed to withstand the extreme conditions and temperature fluctuations for the mission. The key lies in its custom heat shield and an autonomous system that helps protect the mission from the Sun’s intense light emission, but does allow the coronal material to “touch” the spacecraft.


NASA's Parker Solar Probe is heading to the Sun. Why won't the spacecraft melt? Thermal Protection System Engineer Betsy Congdon (Johns Hopkins APL) outlines why Parker can take the heat.
Credits: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Download this video in HD formats from NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio
The Science Behind Why It Won’t Melt
One key to understanding what keeps the spacecraft and its instruments safe, is understanding the concept of heat versus temperature. Counterintuitively, high temperatures do not always translate to actually heating another object.

In space, the temperature can be thousands of degrees without providing significant heat to a given object or feeling hot. Why? Temperature measures how fast particles are moving, whereas heat measures the total amount of energy that they transfer. Particles may be moving fast (high temperature), but if there are very few of them, they won’t transfer much energy (low heat). Since space is mostly empty, there are very few particles that can transfer energy to the spacecraft.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

BTW, I haven't found your meaningful contribution here. I hope it would change next time.

The question was answered in the first page so there has not really been all that much meaningful content in these past 35 pages...

If you are already satisfied by the answers in the first page, then you're welcome.  You can continue your life ignoring disagreements posted after that.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It would make physical science more like a social construct.

If you are a philosopher, you probably think so. Argumentative, but pointless.

You just haven't seen the point, yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The one you are in, but it hardly matters.
Standards like these are international.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=830622
The triple point of  gallium is not dependent on nationality

What's the method selected as international standard?
Why was it chosen over the alternatives?
Has it ever been changed or replaced?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now, yes the heat is also a mechanical energy, but he say it himself... it is a statistical mechanical energy.

What's the difference between statistical mechanical energy and non-statistical mechanical energy?
How would it compare to temperature?
Is there a statistical mechanical energy which is not kinetic? What would it be called?

These can be seen as rhetorical questions. But since no one is interested to answer them, I'll give it a try, starting with this video.

Entropy is a fundamental concept in Data Science because it shows up all over the place - from Decision Trees, to similarity metrics, to state of the art dimension reduction algorithms. It's also surprisingly simple, but often poorly explained. Traditionally the equation is presented with the expectation that you memorize it without thoroughly understanding what it means and where it came from. This video takes a very different approach by showing you, step-by-step, where this simple equation comes from, making it easy to remember (and derive), understand and explain to your friends at parties.

[Bored chemist]

if we keep posting the same things

Royal "We"?

[Bored chemist]

The one you are in, but it hardly matters.
Standards like these are international.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=830622
The triple point of  gallium is not dependent on nationality

What's the method selected as international standard?
Why was it chosen over the alternatives?
Has it ever been changed or replaced?

There's a point where you have to let the experts be experts.
This is true even (some might say "especially") when you don't understand the question.

[Bored chemist]

But since no one is interested to answer them

Others have spent 15 pages answering them
Try not to tell obvious lies in your nest post.

[JLindgaard]

hamdani, gravity is the opposite of entropy. While stars grow to great size, they will not increase in mass. Yet one day the universe will be 1 star that will collapse into itself causing another big bang. The big bang theory says the universe will become 1 small piece of matter that is extremely dense.
 Maybe you could consider an event horizon? Matter is created while some matter is absorbed. And that increases what created the event horizon. That has nothing to do with heat. Heat is nothing more than conserved electromagnetic radiation being released as e = hv. And it's collisions between molecules that release heat/electromagnetic radiation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In this video, thermal energy is distinguished from other forms of kinetic energy by introducing a term: non-mechanical.

What's called non-mechanical kinetic energy in this video can be interpreted as kinetic energy with high entropy. Alan called this internal kinetic energy.
On the other hand, non-thermal kinetic energy or mechanical kinetic energy in this video can be interpreted as kinetic energy with low entropy. Alan called this gross kinetic energy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Other videos on entropy in the context of thermodynamics.

The Misunderstood Nature of Entropy

Reversing Entropy with Maxwell's Demon

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

if we keep posting the same things

Royal "We"?

Any we.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The one you are in, but it hardly matters.
Standards like these are international.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=830622
The triple point of  gallium is not dependent on nationality

What's the method selected as international standard?
Why was it chosen over the alternatives?
Has it ever been changed or replaced?

There's a point where you have to let the experts be experts.
This is true even (some might say "especially") when you don't understand the question.

Aren't you interested to be an expert yourself?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But since no one is interested to answer them

Others have spent 15 pages answering them
Try not to tell obvious lies in your nest post.

Point one.
Try not to tell obvious lies in your next post.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

hamdani, gravity is the opposite of entropy. While stars grow to great size, they will not increase in mass. Yet one day the universe will be 1 star that will collapse into itself causing another big bang. The big bang theory says the universe will become 1 small piece of matter that is extremely dense.
 Maybe you could consider an event horizon? Matter is created while some matter is absorbed. And that increases what created the event horizon. That has nothing to do with heat. Heat is nothing more than conserved electromagnetic radiation being released as e = hv. And it's collisions between molecules that release heat/electromagnetic radiation.

I don't think that your prediction above is in the mainstream view of astrophysics community.

[alancalverd]

Just this once, I have some sympathy with JL. What happens after the heat death of the universe? Stuff will be scattered isothermally and isotropically with maximum entropy but still with mutual gravitational potential, so it will surely coalesce back to a new primordial lump.

[Bored chemist]

so it will surely

You may be sure, but the rest of us aren't.
Eventually, it all ends up moving fast enough to overcome the gravitational attraction- it's above escape velocity- so it becomes more and more diffuse.

[Bored chemist]

I don't think that your prediction above is in the mainstream view of astrophysics community.

Hamdani is correct  in his belief here.
JL's post is nonsense