Itoero

Today I learned the Argentine lake duck is notable for possessing, in relation to body length, the longest (this is link to Largest body part....many interesting trivia) penis of all vertebrates; the penis, which is typically coiled up in flaccid state, can reach about the same length as the animal itself when fully erect, but more commonly is about half the bird's length.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_duck

Because I agree with the scattering definition of Wikipedia. Do you deny that photons scatter when light doesn't travel through vacuum? When particles interact , they scatter.... True but that's about observable light. Can you explain that? The momentum of particles causes scattering, it's not random. That's true but that's only the classical explanation. In order to explain those processes in regards of conservation of energy, you need to study the interaction (which causes scattering) of photons with localized non-uniformities.

Where should it be listed? In the science bible (this is a joke, plz laugh) If you have to believe Wikipedia then evolution (not the theory) is only a biological process. Wikipedia gives info, it's not an authority. When light doesn't travel through vacuum, then the light (the photons) interact with particles. When photons interact with particles they scatter. Scattering is a general physical process where some forms of radiation, such as light, sound, or moving particles, are forced to deviate from a straight trajectory by one or more paths due to localized non-uniformities in the medium through which they pass. (Wikipedia-definition) Vacuum is the transmission medium and localized non-uniformities are particles. Water can also be a transmission medium in which case the localized non-uniformities are particles other then H2O.

Refraction, diffraction, reflection is all due to scattering. Scattering explains the particle behavior While diffraction, reflection and refraction are about observable waves.

Seriously?

Scattering implies a change in direction, something can't change direction without any form of interaction. When you talk about particles, interaction causes scattering. Is this not true perhaps? I 've never said that all changes in direction are due to scattering.

That's true, but you can interpret a photon as being an accelerated packet of energy.

It depends how you interpret it. For photons I would change this definition a bit: 'Kinetic energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body without mass from rest to its stated velocity.'

All the energy of a photon is kinetic energy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Then what is scattering according to your opinion?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering Is Wikipedia wrong? Interaction can lead to scattering...they are obviously not the same thing. There is rayleigh scattering in our atmosphere and oceans but that doesn't mean the moment of refraction is due to rayleigh scattering. And that doesn't matter since scattering implies being forced to deviate from a straight trajectory.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering Scattering implies a change in direction. (Do you deny this?) This is just a question, no straw man, how do you refract a wave without interacting with its particles? (you just said there is no interaction) E=hf So observer A sees different energy of light then observer B yet at the source the light is evenly distributed.....You can describe those thing 'classically' but in order to explain it you need to study the particle behavior. Quantum mechanical collapse states that when light does not travel trough vacuum, the photons interact with particles of the transmission medium they are in. How can anything deflect from its path without an interaction? What do you mean with this: "that every particle is scattered a different variable amount in a different variable direction" The momentum decides how the photon is scattered, how is that random?

Today I learned That female spotted hyena's have a pseudo-penis.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Female_genitalia

Scattering is indeed a kind of interacting...interacting that implies a change in direction. In order to change the direction of the wave propagation due to a change in transmission(refracting) then the wave interacts with the particles of the new transmission medium. According to wave function collapse, photons interact with the particles of the new medium. Refraction implies a change in direction of wave propagation so the interacting photons must also change direction. Interacting with a change in direction is scattering. =>wave function collapse states you can't refract without scattering. Doesn't this depend if the scattering is elastic or inelastic? Inelastic scattering changes the energy, which changes the angle. Yes but the doppler effect is about observable light/waves. It does not state you can change the frequency without interacting. The energy is proportional to the frequency...can you change the energy of light without any interaction??? Their is definitely an interaction, else conservation of energy is wrong. How do you refract a wave without interacting with its particles?

I did not say anything that points in that direction. Don't make such silly assumptions. I'm not stretching anything, scattering is a change in direction due to a form of interaction.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering Photons travel at c but observable light only in vacuum. In a medium (with particles) the light is absorbed and re-emitted by the particles of the medium. Between re-emitting/absorption events it travels at c, but its overall speed through the medium is slowed. The re-emitting can also change the direction (rayleigh, compton...) which also slows the speed or it can cause a sort of filtering effect. Scattering is about particle behavior while diffraction, reflection and refraction are about waves that exist out of many particles. This is of course very relative. You can treat waves as particles, like in this paper.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05722.pdf "Radio-wave scattering in the turbulent interstellar medium (ISM) produces familiar e ects: scintillation in frequency,time, and position. This scintillation has two distinct branches: di ractive and refractive." Light scatters in the atmosphere and in water so refraction is due to scattering.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_water (this shows that light scatters in water)The atmosphere and water have a different refractive index...which causes refraction. The refractive index is a number that describes how light propagates through a medium...propagation works via the interacting of the photons with the particles of that medium...this implies scattering.

I got a fine of 60 euro for peeing outdoor. But I payed 100 euro because I had to take a shit as well.

I get why you think like that, micro and macro evolution can cause confusion, those terms often lose their real meaning in the general public(the same with 'evolution') ...but what does that matter? Does science-language need to become more 'simple' so people understand it? Those are not false terms, scientists make a distinction between micro en macroevolution to make references or they use those terms when it's clear something is micro or macroevolution....the same for macro and microbiology.

Scattering is not refraction. Depending on the medium, scattering causes refraction but it can cause a lot of other things so it's normal it's not mentioned in Wikipedia. I've read a couple discussions and papers and its pretty clear refractions has it origins in scattering. What happens with photons when light is refracted? When light enters an ocean, it tends to filter out red light (low energy) There are other factors but the radiation energy decides the penetration depth. (blue goes deeper then red) Photons in oceans eventually get absorbed by opaque particles. Scattering is interacting with a change in direction. How can photons behave like that in the ocean without scattering? True, but in order to change the properties you need to interact with the wave....you can't really interact with a wave, you can only interact with its particles. Can the properties of a wave be changed without interacting with its particles? Is that (relative velocity) because of the observer effect? Scattering imo means a change in direction due to a form of interaction. 'A form of interaction' can mean anything. They have you just don't listen I'm giving down votes because I find your comments irrelevant and I don't like your tone.

They are words to define an amount of evidence concerning evolution, to categorize the evidence, what's sloppy about that?

What does that matter? The properties of observable light change because the interacting of photons with other particles. Is this not true perhaps? That doesn't 'prove' anything. Why do people never answer on things that matter?

Yes of course. What do you mean when you say a wave isn't made of particles? Light is an electromagnetic wave and is made of photons. Get a grip, when photons don't scatter coherently then the intensity of light is normally speaking to low to be observed. The fact that we can see things means that observable light scatters coherently. Can you plz answer on this? What happens with photons when light-propagation bends? Refraction is the classical explanation of a kind of scattering. The way light behaves in our atmosphere is basically described via Rayleigh scattering. There is water vapor in our atmosphere. So the interaction photons-watermolecules concern Rayleigh (elastic, coherent) scattering. When light enters liquid water (river, lake,...) it still scatters and it refracts. This shows that refraction is a kind of scattering. Do you deny this?

So light does not exist out of photons(particles)? That's new. You contradict yourself. Yes and when the scattering happens coherently, you can get refraction. It's not the same but scattering can cause refraction. Refraction and Raleigh scattering are both affected by the refractive index... Refraction is due to elastic coherent scattering, but you deny this? What happens with photons when light-propagation bends?

You read but you don't understand and that's not why I gave him a down vote. Refraction is about bending of wave propagation due to a change in transmission medium. A wave and transmission medium exist out of particles unless the medium is a vacuum...then it depends how you define a particle. A wave cannot change course without scattering of its particles. Unless light travels trough vacuum, the photons scatter. This is what Rayleigh and Compton scattering are about. Rayleigh scattering is an important component of the scattering of optical signals in optical fibers. Silica fibers are glasses, disordered materials with microscopic variations of density and refractive index. In the formula, you calculate the scattering with the refractive index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering In detail, the intensity I of light scattered by any one of the small spheres of diameter d and refractive index n from a beam of unpolarized light of wavelength λ and intensity I0 is given by...(see link) It's all about wave particle duality. The bending of wave propagation is due to the interacting of its particles. That's true, if you don't like wave particle duality...

Let's simple it down. Refraction is the change in direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium. The photons ( or whatever the wave is made of) interact with the particles of the new medium which causes a different scattering, which bends the wave.

Refraction occurs because of scattering. Refraction occurs when a large number of particles(dipoles) scatter coherently.

Refraction is a form of scattering.

Scientists use it so their must be a purpose. According to your logic people should not make a distinction between micro and macrobiology because they are both biology? And what about micro and macroscopy? This might be but this evolutionary process is not studied like dinosaur-bird so there is no reason to call it macroevolution.