Well... from a physics point of view, radar is light so...

And only because I am a nerd and not because I think that the way our current tech works should affect my space man game thousands of years in the future; but do we use traditional 'radar' in New Eden/Dust ?

Provide a source from DUST which confirms this.

EVE doesn't count, its cloak mechanics are different. We aren't the same kind of immortal as a Capsuleer, and while much of our tech is based on the same principles, the details behind certain items are different enough that the cloak could easily have a similar change in functionality when used within atmosphere and a gravity well.

Dont bash the topic please. The cloaks are new and awesome and fun, I know mines proto on a Cal.. But we need to be honest about their strengths and weaknesses. This may also incorporate something like Enhancing Assault suit precision a bit eh? Currently they have very high suit scans and thus are blind, unless you have a scout in your squad, like a Caldari with triple precision mods......

The usual MODERN technique for dealing with electromagnetic sensors is to use a coating which absorbs rather than reflecting (not refracting) MOST OF THE WAVES, not all of them. Another approach is to construct the stealth vehicle with angles that are designed to reflect the majority of the sensor's radiation in directions other than where a sensor is likely to be.

Even using BOTH of these approaches, stealth planes are frequently picked up on radar, because while this REDUCES their visibility, it doesn't completely hide them altogether.

Even modern stealth technology REDUCES THE PROFILE OF THE STEALTH ITEM. Why would a futuristic powered solution be so different?

Edited quote to remove offensive language. Thanks for that.

Refraction is where light ( or other electromagnetic wave) ENTERS an object and an angle. Reflection is where it REBOUNDS from the object rather than passing through it. Refract only applies when the light is passing through the object, NOT when it's bouncing off the object. The definition you provided is correct. Your use of the word is still incorrect. Before trying to use facts to prove someone wrong, make sure your facts don't prove them right instead.

As for your attempted argument, no that wasn't even remotely relevant to what I said at all. I said that modern stealth technology makes stealthed objects less visible to scanning devices, and asked why a significantly more advanced stealth technology should be expected NOT to do the same thing. I never suggested in any way that the cloak uses the same mechanism as modern stealth to achieve that result.

So pretty much my entire response to your post is "lrn2ingrish".

If you expect technolog in the future to work in a similar fashion to how it does today, then you expect scanners to rely primarily on electromagnetic radiation.

Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

A device designed to primarily distort light around an object to conceal it should reasonably be expected to have a similar (though lesser) effect on other forms of electromagnetic radiation.

Hence why it reduces your scan profile by such a small amount while reducing your visibility significantly more (but still not rendering you properly invisible)