Find out what this logo means
rock and

Communicate with Peter Cross


"Being for the benefit of Mr. Kite", and Danny

Rombox:   Back again we are, with Peter Cross, Child of Einstein, and the entire "Meaning of Life" as heralded by the Oracle, Peter Cross, who claims to have known Einstein personally.   Did I state that accurately, Peter?
Peter Cross:   Yes.

RB:   So how many stars did you actually sleep with?
PC:   Only one (myself), and I went "all the way".

RB:   And how would you relate that to Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
PC:   Everything is relative.  My closest relatives are either dead or a Buddhist monk in Paris, and so even the concept of "sleep with" is relative because if I truly "slept" with a person, I would probably not remember the experience.   My recollection is that I did not actually "sleep" with females, ever, because I knew I could always sleep later, some other time, some other day.

RB:   Peter, can you explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity to the average person who does not necessarily have all 52 cards in their deck?
PC:   Yeah, sure.   First of all, you have to understand that Einstein began to question EVERYTHING at about age 8 when it struck the poor kid that EVERYTHING travels at different speeds except for one thing:   light.   He spent the rest of his life trying to figure out exactly how that could possibly be true.   He never did discover how gravity figures in, but he got really close.

RB:   Could you possibly be any more obscure?
PC:   Look, the Theory of Relativity was only his first attempt, and the poor genius was working as a clerk at the time.   He had absolutely NO IDEA that he had implied the possibility of an atomic bomb as an accidental bi-product of trying to figure out why light is a constant.   All he knew is that he had succeeded in understanding the relationship between energy and matter (whatever they really are) and he figured out the formula that relates them together, E=MC2.   The bomb part turned out to be the curse of his whole life, his CROSS to bear, if you will, and it made him deeply unhappy that he had anything to do with it.

RB:   We all understand The Bomb.   What does the rest of it mean?
PC:   There are lots of side branches, but the main trunk of the tree of the Theory of Relativity is simple:   It says that reality is relative to the observer because of the relative velocity of the observer(s) and the velocity of the event(s).

RB:   Uh, pardon us peons, but how can REALITY be RELATIVE?   Doesn't that sort of negate the concept?
PC:  . Now you've got it, Rombox, that's the whole point; how can reality be relative?   And if it is, then why call it "reality"?   Our brains demand that there must be more, there has to be an objective reality we can really depend on; but then here comes old Albert suggesting very strongly that THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.   Man, he threw the entire universe of scientists into a tailspin with that one, I'm-a-tellin-a-you.

RB:   I'm still trying to understand how "reality" can be relative and still be called "reality"?   Wouldn't a more appropriate word be "unreality"?
PC:   It's hard to get even two people to agree exactly on their perceptions of an "event"; ask Leflaw about how people testify in court.   So here is the key to understanding it all:   ONLY THE OBSERVER IS REAL, and the observer's consciousness does not depend on relative velocity, because velocity only affects the observer's time and perception, NOT the observer.

RB:   Heavy, man, real heavy.
PC:   Very heavy, actually.   If only the observers are real (and even I have to admit the existence of multiple observers who are equal in reality to me), then there is a HEAVY implication that the "real" observers are somehow integrally interconnected.

RB:   WHAT???   That is a real heavy jump in logic.
PC:   Not really, unless you want to contemplate multiple but separate realities that are interconnected through a mutual "unreality", and that is way too complicated for me.   No, the more probable answer is that there IS an objective reality, that all the so-called "separate" observers are actually interconnected through the ONE objective reality which some like to call "life", and that in fact, there is no real separateness; there is only the illusion of separateness.

RB:   OK, if we all ONE, would you mind giving us some of your money?   Or what about a no-interest loan to the non-profit Rombox Foundation.   Come on, how can you answer that?
PC:   My own illusion of separateness does extend into the phony capitalist concept of money, so I have withdrawn my measly funds in $100 bills from the relatively conceived bank accounts and buried the loot in various unrelated public locations in preparation for a quick exit stage right just in case I have to.

RB:   What are you talking about?
PC:   Actually, that was a pre-cognitive burst related to the Phase 3 part of our interview.

RB:   How can you be so sure there will be a part 3, if all is Relative?
PC:   Heh, heh, heh.   Trust me, or Einstien; either one.

RB:   It still sounds like theory to me, Peter.
PC:   Ah, but remember the formula, E=MC2.   This is where it ceases being theory and becomes fact.

RB:   What do you mean?
PC:   E=MC2 links all matter in this universe to all energy, and it ties in nicely with the already proven axiom that energy can transformed from one state to the other, and there is no loss or gain.   Furthermore, not one single atom has been created or destroyed since the very beginning of the universe.

RB:   I'm with you, I think.
PC:   So, if all energy/matter is interrelated through the formula, and none can be created or destroyed; AND, if all the observers are REAL, then the observers can neither be created nor destroyed, and it follows that THE OBSERVERS are eternal.   We are real, and, we are REALLY BIG; try calculating the sum total of our Universe's energy sometime (good luck; better use a Cray).   Einstein realized that his formula is an objective proof of the existence of God.   And so do I.

RB:   I lost you.   But there may be a reader out there who will understand what you just said.   Let's move on.   What about the Unified Field Theory?
PC:   Oh, that's easy because that's where Einstein failed.   He was trying to finish the unfinished portion of the Theory of Relativity, the part that left out how the force of gravity ties into it all, but he never did figure it out.   The reason it's called the Unified Field Theory is because he was trying to find a single theory to tie all the forces together.  He had figured out that light actually bends when it passes around a large chunk of matter like a star, and he suspected that it also slowed down when it bent, but he failed to find the formula, and it really pissed him off before he died.

RB:   All right then, what about The Origin of the Universe and the Reason for it All?
PC:   I will defer to current state of the art in physics these days on the first point, as well as Einstein.   Both are in full agreement that our Universe began with a Big Bang; first there was NOTHING, and then a nano-second later, there was EVERYTHING.   Nice trick, don't you think?   One Hell of a party game.

RB:   Yeah, creating universes must be fun, and amusing too.
PC:   But Rombox, time itself did not begin until AFTER the bang, so we have no way of knowing how long the bang actually took.   It could be that we are all being fooled by the best party trick in the known Universe.

RB:   I suspect that you are leading up to The Reason for it All.
PC:   I am.   This is not a joke.   As far as I can tell, it all happened on account of BOREDOM.

RB:   Boredom???   Boredom implies consciousness.   Consciousness before the Big Bang?   WHO WAS BORED?
PC:   The total energy thing was bored.   I call it God for short.

RB:   Boredom.   I do believe you have come up with a new one there, Peter.   Never heard that theory before.
PC:   Yeah, that part is mine, and it's only a theory.

RB:   Do you have any supporting evidence?
PC:   Yes, I had 3 out-of-body experiences in 1994, but I am saving that for Part 3 of this interview because it is very personal and I may cry.

RB:   Now that's what I call a teaser, but I am not in the mood to listen to you cry today, Peter.
PC:   And I'm not in the mood to do it either, so we're still on the same wavelength, Rombox, relatively speaking.

RB:   (and so he asked, almost knowing the answer)   Why does the Universe keep on going in the face of apparent failure?   And by the way, what makes you think it is failing, and how do you define failure?
PC:   Rombox, you do ask great questions.   It's almost as if you are inside my own brain, knowing what to ask just after I figure out what to say.

RB:   Um, I will accept that as a compliment.
PC:   I think the Universe is failing because of the level of pain.   I greatly fear that there is no upper limit to pain, like there is an upper limit to velocity (the speed of light) and there is a lower limit to temperature (absolute cold, at which velocity theoretically ceases).   I am terrified that pain may be infinite, and I believe that this may NOT have been part of the plan.   I have this awful feeling that human beings discovered the loophole by accident, and that there are now literally millions of professional killers and torturers who fully understand the loophole, are prepared to use it with great freedom and abandon, and actually get their big thrills off the ego trip.   Now I call this a major failure, and I want to STOP THE GAME, REPROGRAM, AND START AGAIN.

RB:   Why don't you do it then?
PC:   I would if I could, but it appears that I can't do it without the full agreement of all the other observers, there are too many of them to call a meeting, and the evil contingent doesn't want to work on the problem at all.

RB:   If you really believe that, Peter, then why does it all keep going?
PC:   Half of the reason is that a meeting with full attendance is impossible until the end of the Universe, but the other half is that the Universe runs in accordance with self-perpetuating axioms which were programmed in the beginning to keep on operating no matter what occurs afterwards.   It was part of the plan to begin with, although a lousy part to be sure.

RB:   When will it all end, Peter?
PC:   There is, or will be, a Black Hole at the center of each and every galaxy.   When the explosive and expansive forces of the Big Bang wear themselves out, the Universe will start contracting, and matter will be literally sucked into the Black Holes.   Eventually, it will all disappear in what I will now officially terminologize for all time as: "THE SUPER SUCK".

RB:   Now, THAT'S funny, Peter.   But seriously, he said, if energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then what happens to the stuff when it gets sucked into a Black Hole?
PC:   There you go with the great questions again.   A Black Hole is the exact reverse of the Big Bang.   You are quite correct; energy and matter are not destroyed when they enter a Black Hole, they are simply converted to their original form which is the Source, the Force, God, etc., and it actually CONTAINS our three dimensional universe within it.   I believe it also contains other universes within it, but let's leave that one alone.

RB:   Um, I think you just answered the last question about where it will all end.
PC:   Almost.   I have this horrible feeling that our universe is not happening for the FIRST time.   I have a worse feeling that it may not be happening for the LAST time.

RB:   It's the level of pain you object to?
PC:   Someone once said, "There is NOTHING that human beings will not do to each other", and it scared the living daylights out of me because I knew it was true.   My own experience is bad enough, but I am even more painfully aware that the majority of people on this planet experience more pain, suffering, starvation, loneliness, and punishment than I do, and I know that their lives are filled with "quiet desperation".

RB:   Peter, can you possibly end Part 2 on a less depressing note?
PC:   (humming to himself) "La de da, la de da" (from Woodie Allen's movie, Annie Hall).   There are 6 less depressing notes; God, I LOVE that movie.

RB:   Peter, seriously, you have given us much food for thought here.
PC:   Not your average rock and roll interview, is it?

RB:   Not hardly, Peter, no.
PC:   GOOD LORD, I almost forgot your 3 questions, Rombox, remember, from the end of Part 1 of our interview?

RB:   Oh yessssssssss...   How many stars did you actually sleep with?
PC:   No, not that one, the other 3, the metaphysical ones.

RB:   OK.   Rombox question number ONE is:   What do you think the role of man is?
PC:   I have to assume the question is sexual in nature, like your other questions, and so the obvious answer, Rombox, is that the role of man is to love women (remember that song from the 60's called "The Game of Love", and in it the hook line was "The purpose of a man is to love a woman"?)   So the answer was given long ago by better minds than mine, but I agree with the essential concept, yes, and that is because I am heterosexual.   Now that I think about it, if I were not heterosexual, my answer might be different.

RB:   Rombox question number TWO is:   Is there a supreme being?
PC:   Well, the obvious answer is: YES, you quark;   Diana Ross!

RB:   Did you call me a quark?   What's that?
PC:   It's physics jargon.   It means Revered Teacher.

RB:   Oh.   Thank you.   Rombox question number Three is: "What happens after death... to those of us who are less than aggressive in fullfilling their roles while they are alive?"   I had to put that one in quotes because it came directly from Rombox's creator, Danny.
PC:   I've spoken to Danny on the telephone many times, and he is one of the world's great characters.   The answer is:   "The same thing that happens to all the rest, brother, aggressive and non-aggressive alike.   You rest for a while, IF you are lucky, and then you get to come back and do it again, and AGAIN, until you GET IT RIGHT."

RB:   Uh, thank you, Peter, for your oracular wisdom, if not your money.  That was the point I hoped to get across (hehehe, or should I say, the point I wanted to get a petercross?)   If we do fullfill our role this time around, maybe we won't have to come back and do it again?   Anyway, we can do a Part 3 interview, but only if you promise to be funnier.
PC:   Part 3 will include lots of true stories from my life, and it has been a pretty intense life so far.   I promise to be interesting, if not downright loveable.

RB:   Fair enough.
PC:   Happy Trails, Rombox, until we meet again.

Th, Th, Th, Th, Thats all folks..... END OF PART 2

Happy trails to you ALL, keep smiling until then.

Lord, please have mercy on my soul... for no one else will....

Click Here For Part I of this Interview


Text and Web Page Copyright 1996 & 2004 Peter Cross

click here to return to