Hello all,

I wrote: "... I wouldn't understand a thing they were on about."

Stephen T. writes: "#1. That still does not mean that it was right for you to comment on something that you haven't heard.

I was commenting on the subject matter not the radio programme. And we are all free to comment on anything we wish, whether we know anything about it or not; and I see that as part of the learning process - I would like to elaborate on that but time will not allow (I'm in Dorset at the moment, and I'm supposed to have been with friends in Devon (95 miles away) about an hour ago!).

Stephen T. writes: "#2. How do you know you wouldn't have understood anythign until you'd tried? Part of the joy of having Melvyn Bragg hosting that program is that, when it comes to this sort of thing, he has limited knowledge, but is intelligent enough to ask the "right questions" whose answers aid understanding."

I wonder if he would be happier if I were to add the word 'probably' to the beginning of that sentence? I ask this because I have read enough articles on Black Holes, quantum physics and so on (New Scientist at the local library, usually) to know that I don't - and am ever unlikely to - understand any of it.

As for Mr Bragg. Firstly, I can't abide the man, so I wouldn't watch or listen to him him anyway (I did enjoy and do miss Carl Sagan). Secondly, it may well be true that "he has limited knowledge, but is intelligent enough to ask the "right questions" whose answers aid understanding." But I think Stephen T. overlooked that part of Bragg's programmes called 'rehearsals'.

I wrote: "I just happen to be very suspicious of these 'pure' science theories."

Stephen T. writes: "#You have just admitted that you do not understand them. As I have said elsewhere, it is arrogant for one to assume that, just because one doesn't understand something, nobody else does."

And I went on to explain why I am suspicious. Perhaps he overlooked that, too.

I do not "assume that, just because one doesn't understand something, nobody else does." This is strictly Stephen T's inference. I may not be very intelligent, or well-educated, but I am not stupid.
Desiderata says: "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself."
I hold that to be true; and vain and bitter I am not, nor am I ever likely to be (my wife wouldn't allow it ).

Regarding Stephen T.s views on the Black Hole (btw, I am well aware of its 200 year history), I would suggest he and others of like mind take a stroll over to the thread "13 things we don't understand." (or similar title). It more all less represents my general stance/view on these things.

Stephen T. writes: " I generally find that it saves me embarrassment if I bother to apprise myself of the facts (which, in this case, are a matter of public record) before sounding off if I am moved to pontificate on something about which I am appallingly ignorant. YMMV." (what does YMMV mean, by the way)

Funny, I'm never really embarrassed by my ignorance of science or any other subject. I have in this thread pontificated (as ST would have it) "on something about which I am appallingly ignorant". And look what has happened!
Thanks to Simon, Bernard, WirelessGuru (wonderful name, don't you think), and Stephen Ts. responses I now understand a little more about Black Holes (but not Black Energy ) than I did at the start of this thread. And what's the betting that some other readers of this thread have gleaned at least some benefit from it.
Okay, my approach to this Board is a mite unorthodox, some may say it's off the wall, many may say it's damned irritating; but it gets me (and, I like to think, others) results, - most of them beneficial, thankfully.

Regards to all,

Alex