Stuart wrote: > On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > So your saying the evidence for an expanding earth is as strong > as the evidence that the Earth is round?
(One more time - another last word):- Yes. Sure thing. It's that simple. Everything about the geology of the Earth points to:- 1. *ENLARGEMENT* - extrusion of the mantle (emplacement of the ocean floors). Erosion. 2. *ADJUSTMENT* of ROUNDNESS* - transform faults ('Abyssal Hills - the biggest landform on the planet and the least about which anything is known), so-called subduction zones (which aren't subduction at all, but the adjustment on the most profound expression of crustal rupture the Earth has ever seen, but may be surpassed in the future by disintegration of the planet. 3. *SPIN* - the architecture of the entire surface geology is symmetrical with the accommodation of spin through geological time.
But you in your myopia can not only see nothing, but are intent on holding up pillars which have less substance than the Emperor's new clothes. The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters, the one prepared to be riddled with the flack of scientific progress, ..hanging like a wind chime, ...gibbetted at the crossroads of science with the wind singing through the holes in your pathetic corpus, ..a lesson to all small children who play with their soup at dinner and too many rubber ducks at bed time. .............."Ah that was the guy who pioneered defence of Plate Tectonics on the internet, The guy who fell asleep on Boxing Day watching telly, filling his legs up with Christmas Pud when there was that Big Tsunami that "snapped the crust up", the one that killed hundreds of thousands of people in a single hit, .. the Rip Van Winkle of Earth Expansion.."
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 12:08 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > > (Florian) wrote: > > > Not even 1% because eclogitization is only partial. Even 1% is > > > ridiculous considering that the mantle is heterogenous.
> > Heterogenous isotopically, not so much in major element chemistry.
But read Anderson, cited above, he arguments for more important heterogeneities, including chemical compounds (compounds, not necessarly elements ok?)
> > "Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently > > when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."
> > So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.
> Google "Bingham Plastic" and "thermal convection"
"Bingham Plastic" is a model. I want real stuff.
Could you please give me an example of "Bingham Plastic" like material that was observed to convect (thermal convection of course).
Thank you.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is > that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared > to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the > *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus > Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one > prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,
Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
> On Apr 5, 2:08 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 12:50 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 4, 10:52 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > (Florian) wrote: > > > > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > Define "plastic". Give me a rheology.
> > > > > ...and stuart will give you another number.
> > > > A french geologist told me a joke recently. > > > > I really love it. I try a translation:
> > > > What's 2 times 2? > > > > A mathematician answers right away: 4! > > > > A geologist, hesitates a bit, but finally answers: that must be 4. > > > > Then a geophysicist: How much do you want?
> > > > Feel free to improve the translation :-)
> > > A geophysicist walks into a McDonalds and orders a whopper.
> > Indeed !,a geophysicist would only ask for something that is not on > > the menu - try Burger King.
> LOL.
> I hardly eat fast food anymore.
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I have to scratch my head and wonder what it is about the motion of the fractured crust using the motions of the Earth as an influence that is so difficult for everybody here.If people,with an image of the Earth before them, try to imagine 'convection cells' they will fail -
If the geodynamics,specifically differential rotation of the interior composition, is great enough to generate a 40km sperical deviation between polar and equatorial diameters,it most certainly is enough to have surface geological effects.
Like the new orbital component before it,geodynamical influences on geological evolution were meant to bring a breath of fresh air to the topics,however,the hostility towards the new and observed orbital component is by far more distressing given that it's effects in terms of the variations between daylight and darkness are the most immediate after day and night caused by axial rotation.The spectacular failure may be due to the absence of a background,a depth that cannot be imposed or substituted by a 'scientific method' and now repetition of the chain of reasoning leading to geological and climatological effects looks like an appeal when it most certainly is not.
Florian wrote: > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>> The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is >> that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared >> to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the >> *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus >> Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one >> prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,
> Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him > that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his > carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen > to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.
you folks pooh pooh anyone that knows any thing. and stuart's mathematics seems to go over the EE head. I know that any disprove or legitimate science is clearly ignored.
I know about celestial mechanics and the simple stuff I post is never really discussed except to snipe and call names.
1. the mathematics predicts that IF and ONLY IF the mass increases will the moon collide with the earth.
2. the null test is no threatening approaches by the moon.
and Yes I can post the mathematics. but why bother when it serves no useful puprose. Ignored messages text is just noise. josephus
josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: > 1. the mathematics predicts that IF and ONLY IF the mass > increases will the moon collide with the earth.
Facts is that the moon is receeding despite the earth is growing. Try to find the physics to explain it instead of wasting your time in denying.
> 2. the null test is no threatening approaches by the moon.
> and Yes I can post the mathematics.
Why am I not impressed... ah yeah, I know. "mathematics" is not a kind of magic. It is just a tool. Only cranks are impressed by maths.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
> >> The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is > >> that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared > >> to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the > >> *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus > >> Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one > >> prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,
> > Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him > > that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his > > carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen > > to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.
> you folks pooh pooh anyone that knows any thing. and stuart's > mathematics seems to go over the EE head. I know that any disprove or > legitimate science is clearly ignored.
Stuart's arithmetic is under the table. By his own admission he doesn't have a clue how subduction gets going http://tinyurl.com/5pl7br So what use is his arithmetic? It's predicated on what premises? (Certainly nothing geological.)
> But read Anderson, cited above, he arguments for more important > heterogeneities, including chemical compounds (compounds, not necessarly > elements ok?)
> > > "Plastic solid: A material that deforms continuously and permanently > > > when submitted to a shearing stress in excess of its yield value."
> > > So give me any example of plastic solids that were oberved to convect.
> > Google "Bingham Plastic" and "thermal convection"
> "Bingham Plastic" is a model. I want real stuff.
> Could you please give me an example of "Bingham Plastic" like material > that was observed to convect (thermal convection of course).
The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to explain the behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low stresses will behave rigidly then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous deformation.
I suggest you do more digging.
By the way, just because feel at a loss due to the fact that are no measurements supporting the earth's increasing girth is no reason to attempt to portray convection in plastic or non-liner solids in the same light. You'll only wind up looking silly if that isn't too late already.
Creep mechanism in solids are theoretically and experimentally justified, take a gander at Poirier's "Creep of crystals". There's a nice Frenchman for you.
On Apr 5, 10:19 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is > > that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared > > to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the > > *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus > > Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one > > prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,
> Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him > that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his > carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen > to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.
It will be along time before you ever earn that right, if ever.
Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > explain the > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > stresses will behave rigidly > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > deformation.
> I suggest you do more digging.
Oh please, I know what it is. I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
[...]
> creep mechanism in solids are theoretically and experimentally > justified, take a gander at Poirier's "Creep of crystals".
Can't you read "thermal convection", or should I conclude that there are zero examples?
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
What a surprise! We can retrofit the margins of Lord Howe, Australia, India, Africa, South-america, all around antarctica! Hey wait a minute, it means that the surface of the globe did expand... Looks like you're in deep trouble...
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart wrote: > On Apr 5, 10:19 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net > (Florian) wrote: > > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > The only good thing about your appearance here Stuart is > > > that you will be seen by others in the future as the only one prepared > > > to put yourself forward as the the frontman, the fall guy, (the > > > *GEORGE*) - the *JESUS CHRIST* even, of Plate Tectonics (Jesus > > > Christ!) , who will go down in the archives of Google as the one > > > prepared to sacrifice all for his dough-headed weeetabix eaters,
> > Indeed, Stuart exposes himself in this newsgroup. I already warned him > > that the discussions are archived. But I don't think it would ruin his > > carreer. His excuse is "Everybody was wrong". The worse that can happen > > to him is that he will be laugh at for a long time.
> It will be along time before you ever earn that right, if ever.
> Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's > career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.
No, ..you're quite wrong there, Florian. Stuart understands perfectly well the business of manipulating "the Gift that Keeps on Giving" - orchestrating the cadences of error in such a way to make them sound OK against the other cacophony of contradictory noise. What would he and others do for an encore, if they suddenly discovered they were right? Oriel put it nicely once about science being *all about* being wrong / impossible to be right, ..and always striving for the truth. It's the name of the game, being wrong. It's the secret handshake, the whispered password necessary to get through the door. Make any allusion to the possibility that you might actually be on to something right and you're deid meat, .. in Stuart's business of 'science', just listen to them holler.
But you're dead right about the Archives of Google. It will be a long time until there is an After-Google for our Stu.
> What a surprise! We can retrofit the margins of Lord Howe, Australia, > India, Africa, South-america, all around antarctica! > Hey wait a minute, it means that the surface of the globe did expand... > Looks like you're in deep trouble...
Stuart's not comfortable in the wind and the rain. He's a party boy - only comfortable in rubber numbers. He feels hugged in a Number 9.
> -- > Florian > "Toute v rit passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis e; > ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d' tre accept e comme > une totale vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote: > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > explain the > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > stresses will behave rigidly > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > deformation.
> > I suggest you do more digging.
> Oh please, I know what it is. > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
Well if you know what it is...
Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote: > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > > explain the > > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > > stresses will behave rigidly > > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > > deformation.
> > > I suggest you do more digging.
> > Oh please, I know what it is. > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> Well if you know what it is...
> Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> What is it you're expecting exactly?
> <snip>
> Stuart
No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove with the rotating and spherical Earth .
What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a 'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion finds a foothold.
No doubt the current dual with abstracts must seem great to both of you but ultimately it amounts to a stationary Earth mechanism versus an expanding Earth conclusion with plate tectonics getting cut to pieces in the process.Having presented the outlines of geodynamical influences via a common mechanism for planetary shape and crustal motion I think it is time for a break,at least from the forums.
> On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote: > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > > > explain the > > > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > > > stresses will behave rigidly > > > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > > > deformation.
> > > > I suggest you do more digging.
> > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> > Well if you know what it is...
> > Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> > What is it you're expecting exactly?
> > <snip>
> > Stuart
> No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove > with the rotating and spherical Earth .
I don't. He asked me for an example of a plastic rheology convecting.
I hope he finds something edible. I've always said the best experiments are the ones you can eat.
> What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic > concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces > and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions > based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and > then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a > 'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating > situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion > finds a foothold.
5258841d0...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Stuart wrote: > Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's > career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.
He's a kook. That's only rarely been a problem for a career flipping burgers. (Some might argue that decades of burger-flipping is a necessary prerequisite for the higher levels of kookery ; others would deny the need for such high-status employment.) -- Aidan Karley, FGS, Aberdeen, Scotland
> On Apr 6, 9:00 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 6:51 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 6, 12:56 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > (Florian) wrote: > > > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > The Bingham plastic rheology was developed by Bingham ( who else?) to > > > > > explain the > > > > > behavior of certain fluids like slurries, fluids which under low > > > > > stresses will behave rigidly > > > > > then loose strength under high stress and suffer permanent continuous > > > > > deformation.
> > > > > I suggest you do more digging.
> > > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> > > Well if you know what it is...
> > > Then put some in a pot. Put it on the stove, heat, observe.
> > > What is it you're expecting exactly?
> > > <snip>
> > > Stuart
> > No offence but how do you correlate a flat bottomed pot on a stove > > with the rotating and spherical Earth .
> I don't. He asked me for an example of a plastic rheology convecting.
> I hope he finds something edible. I've always said the best > experiments are the > ones you can eat.
> > What you and your colleagues are doing is weakening the plate tectonic > > concept even though there are only scattered clues as to the forces > > and effects,compositions and viscosity involved.Drawing conclusions > > based entirely on surface correlations can only get you so far and > > then turn counter-productive if you settle on a conclusion such as a > > 'convection cell' mechanism and that it turn allows an irritating > > situation to emerge where idiotice notions such as the ee conclusion > > finds a foothold.
> Wow. Even Oriel figures EE is idiotic.
> <snip>
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
In all honesty,the convection cell/ee debate is like watching flat Earthers challenge geostationary Earthers,it does not matter which is which,the result is as dismal as it is predictable.I have always said that I am content to leave you to your own devices but the chances are that only the most indifferent are not curious about geodynamical influences on the motion of the Earth's crust.
I find 'convection cell' adherents worse than ee proponents insofar as they inherit the genuine reasoning which lead to plate tectonics as a prooductive working principle but are now undermining the concept with details of the interior,structure,composition and viscosity based on an ad hoc mechanism of thermally driven convection.
So 'even' Oriel gets that ee is idiotic is followed by geostationary 'convection cells'.I would say it will take a few months before the ee guys will start hammering you about the internal mechanism and I do not mind that you will come off looking worse,I do mind that you are taking plate tectonics as a working principle with you.I leave you to what I am sure for you is a titanic struggle with ee guys but I do look forward to genuine people actually picking up geodynamical influences as they know exist in the matter of geology.
After a incredible 9 moinths with more detail added to geodynamical influences and the addition of an overlooked orbital component I look forwrd to a genuine break that is good for everyone.Don't cut each other to pieces ,do you hear,and keep the discussions technical.
On Apr 7, 11:39 am, Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4461b784-a2e8-400d-8f91-5258841d0...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Stuart wrote: > > Exposing your nonsense for what it is, can't hurt anyone's > > career except yours. Assuming you actually have one.
> He's a kook. That's only rarely been a problem for a career > flipping burgers. (Some might argue that decades of burger-flipping is > a necessary prerequisite for the higher levels of kookery ; others > would deny the need for such high-status employment.) > -- > Aidan Karley, FGS, > Aberdeen, Scotland
The good people who work in those fast food chains do not have pretensions and do their jobs properly but considering that you,as a stationary Earther,make little of them while believing in your own nonsense says more about you and your 'high-status'.
Perhaps among those people who work at McDonald's there is a genuine geologist or astronomer who could not surmount the dismal empirical doctrine and settled for something less or those who still suffer because they have no outlet for their natural talents.You have only risen to standards set by your own kind,to be fair,that works to a certain degree but natural talent sets its own standards and its own course - all the great discoveries are made by those who cross the boundaries between disciplines that are now becoming evermore compartmentalised.All I see here are overheated discussions based solely on surface correlations and that hardly is the realm of evolutionary geologists.
I do not mind backslapping but you do it at the expense of others and who knows,maybe one of those who served you French fries would have made an astounding geological discoveries had the background been in place to operate in productively for that person .I made my discoveries because the background conditions were hostile but once done,they are done .
Regardless of what you say,you are a stationary Earther who just happens to be familiar with plate tectonics.and I will leave you in that condition until September when I return.
> > Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that how subduction gets going is an > > interesting problem.
> Really? Now this is news. What problem do you see, Stuart? Is it > convection drives subduction, ..or subduction drives convection?
> There's a nice simple framework for your answer. Which one would you > like to begin with? (..since both of them seem to figure in Plate > Tectonics as equally correct).
What? No answer, Stuart?
Hah! Not only have you no answer to how subduction begins http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/9a8d3634bd3a8471 you do not understand the priorities of the parameters controlling the process you profess to support, you are drunk on the foetid fugh that rises (by convection) from the overheated malodourous swamp of Plate Tectonics.
Tell you what, Stu, .. .. Since you began all this by being the arrogant bully you are, and taking a gratuitous swipe at my poor one- legged butt when I asked a simple question, ...and since you are seriously continuing to support this stupid analogy of hot air rising as the reason for keeping the whole schemozzle of Plate Tectonics on the road even though you or anyone else cannot tell how it begins, nor can offer any reason for the many anomalies, conundrums and outright contradictions that follow from attributing convection as a driver for a process you know nothing about (how it begins), I'll offer you a page on my website and you can fill it out (/in) (as you prefer)as we go along and things occur to you.
I'll provide a hand-hold and help you. Like Florian says there's surely plenty in the archives we can use . Now I can't say fairer than that as an aid to fair-handedness can I? Aidan there's even complaining that you're not answering my posts...
Come on Stuart, subduction is the key to your whole argument for Plate Tectonics and you freely admit you have no answer to how it can begin. What's going on? If you can't answer that one you plainly need some help.
Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote: > > Oh please, I know what it is. > > I Ask for a real life example of THERMAL CONVECTION in such a material.
> Well if you know what it is...
> Then put some in a pot.
Some of what? That is the question. Can't you just give me the name of a plastic solid in which thermal convection was observed?
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote: > He's a kook.
Idiot. We you not taught to respect PhDs at your University?
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote: > He's a kook.
Idiot. Were you not taught to respect PhDs at your University?
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
