Ah yes, that stuffy, hidebound world of academia, where smart people have to think really hard for a long time to understand complicated subjects, instead of getting their information in easily digestible "infographics" and becoming instant experts.

Most math is symbolic, not graphical. So the answer to your specific question is "nothing at all, really," but I think you may have missed OP's point.

Einstein's work was never considered pseudoscience by those knowledgeable in the field. I really wish people would stop repeating this myth. Relativity theory was groundbreaking, to be sure, but both special and general relativity were widely accepted within a few years of publication because they so neatly solved so many problems which had been bugging so many physicists. It seems we're so wedded to the story of "great scientist mocked by his peers but vindicated by history" that we tell that story about every famous genius, even those to whom it doesn't apply -- while, sadly, nearly forgetting many to whom it does, including Wegener.

As for Copernicus, the idea of "science" in the modern sense didn't really exist in the 1500s, so "pseudoscience" didn't either. The objections to heliocentricity, and to the nature of Copernicus' investigations, were entirely religious in nature; scientific debate, as we would understand it today, never even entered into it.

Part of the problem is that the "Gaia hypothesis" is misnamed; it's not a single hypothesis to be tested. Obviously there exist regulatory feedback cycles within the environment; the question is how strong those feedback cycles are. If you want to think of the entire planet as a single self-regulating organism, you certainly can, but it really doesn't change the nature of the investigation into how specific parts of it work.

No. Pretty much the whole point of TFA is that it took a half-century for Wegener to be vindicated. Continental drift theory was not generally accepted until the 1960s, and I remember that in the 70s there was still considerable debate about whether or not it really explained the modern shape and placement of the continents. It's not at all surprising that he ran into someone who still dismissed the whole idea as nonsense if he was in grad school in, say, the mid-60s -- or even up to the 80s, if the prof was particularly ossified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle

It's happened not once, but several times. You're right, it would be highly unlikely that all the continents were lumped together one and only one time, and then assumed their current fairly scatted forms. Instead, they keep merging together and then breaking apart.

Actually, the person you responded to said:

I note you deliberately left off alcohol, which is most certainly a factor in a great many violent assaults. And the point of the entire thread isn't the specific nature of the harm these various substances do, but the fact that they are all demonstrably harmful to people other than those using them; the question at hand is whether or not this harm is sufficient cause for banning them. If you want to engage in obvious cherry-picking, go ahead, but be aware that it's really not helping you make your case.

You can add up every single murder and suicide committed under the influence of illegal drugs, every death by overdose, every death due to organ failure caused by years of addiction ... and you still won't come close to the number of deaths and the amount of damage caused by the "War on Drugs" rather than the drugs themselves. If you don't think the argument makes sense, that's your problem for not paying attention.

Honestly, the TLD system has been broken for a long time. There should probably never have been TLDs without country codes, for one thing. And enforcement on TLDs that were supposed to be reserved for specific purposes was always lousy -- I remember seeing clearly commercial sites with .net TLDs popping up in the mid-90's.

Microsoft should be perfectly happy with their ownership of .crash, .virus, and .bsod.