# Great science facts **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 1, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272 "2013-05-01T23:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/101 "2013-05-03T19:10:28Z")
There appears to be some correlation between rain and pooping from trees, but it hasn’t been well-studied, to my knowledge. If it has, I’d love to see the paper. Nevertheless, ground level sloth pooping seems to be the norm. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/102 "2013-05-03T19:12:23Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > There appears to be some correlation between rain and pooping from trees, but it hasn’t been well-studied, to my knowledge. If it has, I’d love to see the paper. I’ve exhausted my expertise on the topic; I think the article I saw was in _Smithsonian_ around 1993-4. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, ground level sloth pooping seems to be the norm. I just quoted this because it’s the most hilarious sentence I’ve read all day. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/103 "2013-05-03T19:16:29Z")
I aim to please. From the tops of trees. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/104 "2013-05-04T00:49:49Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > The plus and minus symbols on batteries are wrong. The symbols mean exactly what they are supposed to: the “+” terminal is at a higher potential than the “-” terminal. Nothing wrong about it. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/105 "2013-05-04T01:12:42Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > The symbols mean exactly what they are supposed to: the “+” terminal is at a higher potential than the “-” terminal. Nothing wrong about it. hmm, perhaps I’m misremembering. I do know that several of the electronics books I own refer to the incident as The Mistake. Back To The Facts Besides common red, yellow and orange, amber comes in green, blue, opaque white, and opaque blue. Once while looking for a specimen of the rare blue types, I was told by a clerk ‘There is no such thing as blue amber. What you saw must have been dyed or something’ It is indeed taking longer than we thought. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/106 "2013-05-04T01:50:44Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Columbus wasn’t tying to prove the Earth was a sphere. Learned people and scientists had known that since ancient Greece. Even more to the point, Columbus was trying to demonstrate that the Earth was much smaller than it actually is or was believed to be, even at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/107 "2013-05-04T02:11:31Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > … if you thoroughly shuffle a normal deck of 52 cards and then deal them out one by one, you just beat odds of one in 8\*10^67 that you would get that exact sequence. This has no significance unless the sequence was specified before the deal. The probability of getting some sequence of 52 cards is unity. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/108 "2013-05-04T04:28:16Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > hmm, perhaps I’m misremembering. I do know that several of the electronics books I own refer to the incident as The Mistake. You are likely thinking of the arbitrary choice of whether the charge on the electron was called positive or negative. It doesn’t matter which is chosen, though. Many common systems convey charge through the motion of electrons, and because of this some argue that the electron “should” have been conventionally labeled as having positive charge, but it’s really six of one, half dozen of the other. Neither convention is more right than the other. And as **Crafter\_Man** mentioned upthread, electrical currents can involve the motion of positive charges, negative charges, or both at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/109 "2013-05-04T04:51:29Z")
I recall reading some time ago that on the scale of the Universe, certain very large numbers (e.g., the average distance between galaxies) tend to cluster around the number 10^64, while very small numbers (e.g., the average size of subatomic particles) tend to cluster around 10^-64. Sound familiar, or is my memory flawed? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/110 "2013-05-05T01:00:06Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > [Look at this pic](http://forums.autodesk.com/autodesk/attachments/autodesk/78/277099/1/Twisted%20Conductors.jpg). Notice how there is an overall corkscrew (helix) to the wire? That is because someone twisted the wire. As they were twisting the wire, a slight overal helix started to form and the wire got “shorter” at the same time, i.e. the distance between each end of the wire decreased. The wire “contracted” in a sense. But it didn’t \*really \*get shorter from an \*electrical \*standpoint; the actually path length remained unchanged. > > So if I have 1 meter of stranded wire, as measured with a simple tape measure, I am simply measuring the distance between the two ends. But because there is a slight overall helix to the wire (which is so subtle that it is difficult for your eyes to see), the actual, electrical length of the wire is slightly more than 1 meter. Even at DC. > > This is something very few electrical engineers know. Now I see what you mean; the effect is a result of the mechanics of twisting the cable, not a conductivity phenomenon. Well, you say it’s difficult for eyes to see and I guess that must be true because I have never observed this. I also suspect that taking a straight-lay stranded cable and then twisting it may produce a different result than twisting the strands around a core as the cable is made. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/111 "2013-05-05T01:13:26Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Now I see what you mean; the effect is a result of the mechanics of twisting the cable, not a conductivity phenomenon. Well, you say it’s difficult for eyes to see and I guess that must be true because I have never observed this. Yes, it is a very subtle thing, and almost impossible for the human eye to detect. But it is there. And resistance measurements (between twisted and solid wires) prove this phenomenon is true. > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I also suspect that taking a straight-lay stranded cable and then twisting it may produce a different result than twisting the strands around a core as the cable is made. Quite possibly. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/112 "2013-05-05T05:11:05Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > You do not need an airfoil to generate lift. Nor do you need the Coanda effect. Lift is caused by directing air downward. A flat surface can do that, as long as it has a finite angle of attack. The advantage of an airfoil is that it allows a larger angle of attack before stalling. There is a great tutorial on flight available [here.](http://www.av8n.com/how/) ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/113 "2013-05-05T07:03:24Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > The symbols mean exactly what they are supposed to: the “+” terminal is at a higher potential than the “-” terminal. Nothing wrong about it. It only means that because we have arbitrarily decreed that + and - are the way round they are. :smack: If “higher potential” meant “more electrons stacked up and ready to unload” then plainly the negative side, as presently defined, would be the side with higher potential. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/114 "2013-05-05T08:23:59Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > It only means that because we have arbitrarily decreed that + and - are the way round they are. :smack: > > If “higher potential” meant “more electrons stacked up and ready to unload” then plainly the negative side, as presently defined, would be the side with higher potential. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s an arbitrary convention, but the battery conforms to that convention, so there’s nothing wrong with the labeling. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/115 "2013-05-05T13:29:03Z")
Nothing rhymes with orange. That can be read in more than one way. One could be clever and say, false, nothing does not rhyme with orange. I googled this some more, and found that the “only word in the 20-volume historical Oxford English Dictionary that rhymes with orange is sporange, a very rare alternative form of sporangium (a botanical term for a part of a fern or similar plant).” ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/116 "2013-05-05T13:34:20Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Nothing rhymes with orange. That can be read in more than one way. One could be clever and say, false, nothing does not rhyme with orange. > > I googled this some more, and found that the “only word in the 20-volume historical Oxford English Dictionary that rhymes with orange is sporange, a very rare alternative form of sporangium (a botanical term for a part of a fern or similar plant).” How is this a _ **science** _ fact? ---
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/117 "2013-05-05T16:38:21Z")
> [@chrisk](#): > > The detail I like is this: Iron oxide rust is reddish and brittle, with a tendency to crumble off the iron item and reveal fresh iron to be attacked by oxygen. Aluminum oxide that forms on an aluminum object will generally be the same color as aluminum, tougher and stronger than the pure metal. So it protects the item from further oxidation 🙂 Titanium is like that as well. An interesting thing about Ti: it’s not expensive because it’s rare, it’s expensive because it’s difficult to refine and work with. Titanium dioxide is pretty cheap and used as an opacifier in paper, paint and even food. Another relation with aluminium, aluminium used to be more expensive than gold, also because it was hard to extract, but look where it is today. If we could find a cheap way to refine titanium, would it be as cheap as aluminium? (Maybe not that cheap, because titanium isn’t as abundant as aluminium in Earth’s crust) ---
**Author:** ![Animastryfe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@Animastryfe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Animastryfe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/118 "2013-05-05T17:30:37Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > [Dude, don’t link to snopes when Cecil wrote about it.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1090/is-it-true-a-ducks-quack-wont-echo) > > Did no one get my “spider” joke earlier? I assumed Psxer was joking as well. Ah, I have committed heresy by forgetting that Cecil wrote about it! D: I understood your joke, but I didn’t think that Psxer was joking. ---
**Author:** ![Gymnopithys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/fbc32d/32.png) [@Gymnopithys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gymnopithys)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/119 "2013-05-05T17:33:13Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > A duck’s quack doesn’t echo - and no one knows why It’s an urban legend. See here: [http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=urbanlegends&cdn=newsissues&tm=55&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip\_p504.6.342.ip\_&tt=11&bt=3&bts=3&zu=http%3A//www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics\_info/duck/%3Fcontent%3Dindex](http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=urbanlegends&cdn=newsissues&tm=55&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=11&bt=3&bts=3&zu=http%3A//www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/duck/%3Fcontent%3Dindex) and here: [http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/birds/p/Ducks-Quack-Echo.htm](http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/birds/p/Ducks-Quack-Echo.htm) ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272/120 "2013-05-06T02:48:58Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > How is this a _ **science** _ fact? Linguistics? A [Duck’s](http://goducks.com/) [Echo](http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/echo/2005/features-specs.html) doesn’t qvack. And it gets about 38 mpg! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-science-facts/657272.md?page=7)