What does this logo mean?

Contact Starcrost
Attention campers! Don't forget to listen to the music before you leave here - (click on this)

Amy:   We're back again with Peter Cross, Child of Einstein, and the entire "Meaning of Life" as heralded by the Oracle who claims to know what Einstein was talking about. Did I state that accurately, Peter?
Peter:   Yes, Amy, I'm afraid you did.

Amy:   So how many stars did you actually sleep with?
Peter:   What, again? OK - only one (myself), and I went "all the way".

Amy:   And how would you relate that to Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
Peter:   Everything is relative. My closest relatives are either dead or a might-as-well-be-dead Buddhist monk in Paris, and so even the concept of "sleep with" is relative because if I truly "slept" with a woman, I would probably not remember the experience. My recollection is that I did not actually "sleep" with any of my lovers - ever, because I knew I could always sleep later, some other time, on some other day.

Amy:   Oh, Peter, that was very nicely put! So now can you explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity to the average person who does not necessarily have all 52 cards in their deck?
Peter:   Amy, that was also very nicely put. First of all, you have to understand that Einstein began to question everything at about age eight when it struck him that EVERYTHING travels at different speeds, except for one thing: light. He began to obsess on why that could possibly be true, and his awesome intellect let him to develop his Theory of Relativity.

Amy:   Could you possibly be any more obscure?
Peter:   Look, the Theory of Relativity was only his first attempt and the poor genius was working as a menial clerk in a patent office at the time. In the beginning, he had 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. He did know that he had succeeded in expressing 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 particular Peter Cross to bear, and it made him deeply unhappy that he had anything to do with it.

Amy:   We all understand The Bomb. What does the rest of it mean?
Peter:   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).

Amy:   Uh, pardon us peons, but how can reality be relative? Doesn't that sort of negate the concept?
Peter:   Now you've got it, Amy, 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 that 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.

Amy:   I'm still trying to understand how "reality" can be relative and still be called "reality"? Wouldn't a more appropriate word be "unreality"?
Peter:   It's hard to get even two people to agree exactly on their perceptions of an "event". Ask any lawyer about how witnesses 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, but NOT the observer's own inner reality.

Amy:   Heavy, man, real heavy.
Peter:   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.

Amy:   WHAT??? That is a real heavy jump in logic.
Peter:   Not really, Amy, unless you want to contemplate multiple separate realities that are interconnected through a mutual "unreality" and that's 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.

Amy:   OK, if we all ONE, would you mind giving me some of your money? Or what about a no-interest loan? I have BILLS! Come on, Peter, help me out here.
Peter:   My own illusion of separateness does extend into the 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.

Amy:   What are you talking about?
Peter:   Actually, that was a pre-cognitive burst related to my song, Hangin' with Arnie, and what he might do to me if he ever actually hears it!

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

Amy:   What do you mean by that?
Peter:   E=MC2 links all energy in this universe to all matter, and it ties in nicely with the already proven axiom that neither energy nor matter can ever be destroyed. It can only be transformed from one state into another, and there is no loss or gain. Not one single electron, proton or neutron has been created or destroyed since the very beginning of the universe.

Amy:   I'm with you, I think.
Peter:   So, if all energy and matter is interrelated through Einstein's formula, and nothing 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. The observers are REAL, and we are REALLY BIG. Try calculating the sum total of our Universe's energy sometime (good luck - better use a linked series of Crays). Einstein believed that his formula is proof of the existence of God. And so do I because there simply has to be a source for all that inconceivable amount of energy.

Amy:   I lost you, but there may be one reader out there who will understand what you just said. Let's move on. What about the Unified Field Theory?
Peter:   Oh, that's easy because that's where Einstein did not achieve his ultimate goal. He was trying to figure out how the force of gravity relates to all the other forces and the reason it's called the Unified Field Theory is because he wanted to develop one single theory to tie all the forces of the universe 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 single formula to connect it all together and it frustrated him that he was unable to do it. And if Einstein couldn't do it, who can?

Amy:   All right then, what about the origin of the universe and the reason for it all?
Peter:   I will defer to the current state of the art in physics. For many years, scientists have agreed 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 parlor game!

Amy:   Yeah, creating universes must be fun - and amusing too!
Peter:   But Amy, 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 trick in the known universe.

Amy:   I suspect that you are leading up to the reason for it all.
Peter:   I am. This is not a joke. As far as I can tell, it all happened on account of BOREDOM (yawn).

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

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

Amy:   Do you have any supporting evidence?
Peter:   Yes, I had three out-of-body experiences in 1994, and you will find the entire story in The Swami and Me .

Amy:   Very interesting, Peter, I'll have to read that one.
Peter:   Please do, Amy. It's the true story of my entire spiritual journey in this lifetime.

Amy:   (and so she 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?
Peter:   Amy, 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.

Amy:   I will accept that as a compliment.
Peter:   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 believe that pain may be infinite, and I also 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 kicks off the ego trip. Now I call this a major failure, and I want to STOP THE GAME, reprogram, and start all over again.

Amy:   Why don't you do it then?
Peter:   I would if I could do it myself, 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.

Amy:   If you really believe that, Peter, then why does it all keep going?
Peter:   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. It was part of the plan to begin with, although I think it's a lousy part to be sure.

Amy:   When will it all end, Peter?
Peter:   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 call "THE SUPER SUCK"!

Amy:   Now, THAT'S funny, Peter. But seriously, if energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then what happens to the stuff when it gets sucked into a black hole?
Peter:   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 back 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 as well, but let's leave that one alone for now.

Amy:   I think you just answered the last question about where it will all end.
Peter:   Almost. I have this feeling that our universe is not happening for the first time. I also have a bad feeling that it may not be happening for the last time. Scary thought.

Amy:   It's the level of pain you object to?
Peter:   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 was bad enough, but I am even more painfully aware that the majority of people on this planet experience more pain, suffering, starvation, and loneliness than I did and I know that their lives are filled with quiet desperation.

Amy:   Peter, can you possibly end Part 2 on a less depressing note?
Peter:   (humming to himself) "la de da, la de da". That's Diane Keaton from Woodie Allen's movie Annie Hall - hey, there are 6 less depressing notes. God, I love that movie!

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

Amy:   Not hardly, Peter, no.
Peter:   Good Lord, I almost forgot your three questions, Amy, remember? From the end of Part 1 of our interview?

Amy:   Oh yes. How many stars did you actually sleep with?
Peter:   No, you already asked me that one too many times - the other three, the metaphysical ones.

Amy:   OK. Question number one. What do you think the role of man is?
Peter:   I have to assume your question is sexual in nature, like that other question you keep asking, and so the obvious answer 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. And that is because I am wildly heterosexual. Now that I think about it, if I were not heterosexual, my answer might be different.

Amy:   Question number two. Is there a supreme being?
Peter:   Well, the obvious answer is YES, you quark! It's Diana Ross!

Amy:   Did you just call me a quark? What's that?
Peter:   It's physics jargon. It means Revered Teacher.

Amy:   Uh . . . thank you. Question number three is what happens after death to those of us who are less than aggressive in fulfilling our roles while we are still alive?
Peter:   The same thing that happens to all the rest of us, Amy, 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."

Amy:   Thank you for your oracular wisdom, if not for your money. That was the point I hoped to get across, or should I say, the point I wanted to get a petercross? If we do fulfill 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.
Peter:   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 lovable.

Amy:   Fair enough.
Peter:   Happy Trails, Amy, until we meet again in Part 3.