That’s the point, it’s not related. What you read is(vaguely) the definition of temperature. It’s just a physical property that determines what would happen when two bodies touch each other. If they are at “different temperatures”, some process(which we can call heat transfer) would take place from one body to the other. If the two objects have the same number assigned to them(ie, their temperature) then there will be no interaction or process that occurs. Temperature, by definition is not a measure of internal energy but it IS related to it. That relation is either directly proportional, or inversely proportional, depending on which convention you take. Humans chose the one where hot objects have a bigger number, and so we chose the relation of temperature being directly proportional to kinetic energy

Since the conversion is 1/T, a body would have a temperature of zero when it’s internal energy tends to infinity

They would, since all you’re doing is replacing T by 1/T

Computationally, I don’t know. One advantage is related to the Maxwell velocity distribution curve, where the function is related to e^-(1/kT) where 1/kT is replaced by B. I would probably say, when it comes to explaining temperature non-rigourusly, it seems simpler in the current scale, but if we used the g(x) version, not much would have changed. Our scales would be calibrated differently, boiling water would be 0*C and the ideal gas equation would be PVT = nR but there wouldn’t be any contractions/problems or as you put it, loss of information

Temperature is NOT, a measure of internal kinetic energy. Because of the current convection we have, where absolute zero represents a state where molecules have zero speed, and +infinity where molecules have a high speed. It has a correlation with kinetic energy, which in this system is direct proportionality, but we could just as easily have defined the convention the other way, and the only difference would be that our equations would have 1/T rather than T (for temperature)

I don’t mean reverse the negatives, I mean invert the temperatures. That way, absolute zero becomes 1/0(infinity), which makes sense cuz it’s physically impossible to reach

Yeah, I tried not getting too technical with it in terms of my explanations, but at some point you gotta whip em out. Also, about the intuition. Wouldn’t there be any of that for temperature? If stick my hand in hot water and the other hand in ice, there isn’t anything that strikes me saying that the hot water should have a higher number attached to it. For something like distance, it’s obviously, bigger distance = higher number, but when it comes to temperature, we could have gone either way and nothing would’ve changed except some formulae

That’s a good argument, however my point was a bit different. Temperature, by its very definition, had nothing to do with heat, or internal energy. It’s a parameter used to describe the distribution of kinetic energy across all the particles(called Maxwell’s velocity distribution curve). That curve, is of the sort e^-(1/kT) where k is a constant and T is the temperature. In that sense, we’re using temperature the wrong way. If we defined absolute zero as infinity and very high temperatures as tending to zero, we’d have a scale more in tune with this actual physical behaviour of molecules. And if THAT definition of temperature, it is INVERSELY proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules. That’s the thing, temperature isn’t a measure of heat, it just so happens to be numerical proportional to it. Is weight a measure of inertia? No, weight is a force. However, the weight of a object does have some sort of relation with the mass of that object, which IS a measure of inertia. It’s the same thing with heat and temperature

It’s hard to explain it in the title, since it’s only two sentences but I’ve been trying. Just look at some of the other comments

About the energy thing, temperature isn’t actually a measure of the energy of a system, only proportional to it, from the way we’ve defined it. Also I don’t mean reverse the scale, but invert it. Therefore a temperature tending to “absolute zero” tends to infinity, which does make sense since it’s impossible to physically reach absolute zero

Could you go look up some stuff about the zeroth law of thermodynamics(or read some of my replies on other comments). I have a book to recommend if you’d like. I’m tired of getting downvoted to oblivion cuz the general public has misconceptions about certain things and don’t even hear me out

Hotter objects have more “heat”. Temperature, contrary to what’s commonly told, is not a measure of the heat or kinetic energy of a system

But that’s the mistake most people make. Temperature, as ridiculous as it sounds, is not a measure of heat. The temperature of a system is a property, like pressure or weight, which in the way it’s defined, has a value proportional to the internal energy(what’s commonly referred to as “heat”) of that object. It’s meaning is completely independent of heat. So, we could just as easily have flipped it, saying temperature is inversely proportional to heat(hot has a lower temp than cold). There are actually compelling reasons to do measure “temperature” this way, in relation to the way the “heat” of an object is distributed among the particles that make it up