THE PHYSICS / PHILOSOPHY HOWLER: In search of Albert Einstein's findings!

MONDAY, JULY 12, 2021

Cohen's column, Isaacson's joke: A story has to start somewhere. We'll start ours in two different places.

We'll start our story with Richard Cohen's miracle column in the Washington Post. But also, we'll start our story with Walter Isaacson's fully appropriate joke.

Cohen was a high-profile columnist for the Post for more than forty years. The "miracle column" to which we refer appeared on June 26, 1988—relatively early in his tenure. 

In the column, Cohen discussed attempts to explain the fruits of Albert Einstein's "miracle year" (1905) and of his subsequent career. 

Stephen Hawking had written and published a giant best-seller—a book which purported to make Einstein's work understandable for the general reader. Cohen did something extremely unusual in his miracle column:

In his column, he made it clear that he didn't understand. 

Cohen started, not with a joke, but with a joking tone. He railed at Hawking for having written such an incomprehensible easy-to-understand book:

Damn you, Stephen Hawking. Damn you and your book, A Brief History of Time, which rests, at this writing, on the best-seller lists and which has been praised as lucid, accessible, containing only one equation (Einstein's E = mc2). A scientific book written for the layman, an important book about the beginnings of the universe, of time and matter and the unified theory that would combine those of quantum mechanics and relativity to explain everything: everything, that is, but how the layman can possibly be expected to understand this book.

Right from the jump, Cohen was saying he didn't understand the lucid, accessible book. His frustration was obvious throughout. As he continued, he described one source of his frustration.

"As kids, my friends and I used to go down to the beach at night," Cohen wrote. (Judging from Cohen's basic biography, this may have been out in Far Rockaway.) 

"We would lie on our backs and look up at the stars and wonder—wonder about space and about nothingness."

"I still wonder," Cohen wrote; he said that was why he'd leaped at the chance to read Hawking's book.  But also, he said that he'd read a bunch of reviews, and this is what they'd said:

[M]ost of them started, as did the one by Jeremy Bernstein in The New Yorker, by saying how easy this book was to read. "Charming and lucid," Bernstein said, although his review was anything but.

Ditto The New York Review of Books. "Hawking's prose is as informal and clear as his topics are profound," wrote Martin Gardner, the author of several books on science. He then outdid Bernstein in proving that the informal and clear could be reduced to sludge. Newsweek weighed in with a profile of Hawking. It noted his use of "imaginary" time, adding that " 'Imaginary' is used here in a technical mathematical sense—meaning the square root of a negative number . . ." What???

And so it has gone, each review proclaiming that the book made the incomprehensible comprehensible, even though the review itself was incomprehensible. 

According to Cohen, the reviews all said the book was easy. But the reviews themselves were extremely hard—indeed, they were incomprehensible!

According to Cohen, he had seen only one review which touched upon the difficulty of Hawking's widely-praised book. Even there, he seemed to say, the critic may have been fudging a bit:

Only one critic I read (Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times) admitted that the book contained "several dense passages . . . which this reader . . . found impossible to follow." But even she praised the work, while concluding, "It is hard for the lay reader to grasp all of Mr. Hawking's arguments." Hard? Try impossible.

According to the frustrated Cohen, Kakutani had been willing to admit that "several" parts of the book will be "hard for the lay reader to grasp." Cohen took things to the edge of the event horizon, subbing the word "impossible" in for the reviewer's "hard."

Cohen was aggressively rejecting conventional wisdom about a very high-profile book by a very high-profile writer. Especially concerning books which claim to make Einstein's work accessible—books which are said to be easy-to-read—this was a very rare stance, and would still be so today.

Cohen went on to make some sound observations about the state of modern physics. Five months later, in early December, another Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer, published a similar column, describing his own inability to understand Hawking's allegedly easy book.

In their columns, Cohen and Krauthammer made sound points about the difficulty involved in any attempt to understand modern physics. But before we consider some of those points, let's consider Walter Isaacson's joke.

Isaacson's joke comes right at the start of his widely-praised 2007 biography, Einstein: His Life and Universe. By the time the book appeared, Isaacson had turned from a career as a highly capable, high-ranking mainstream journalist to a career as a highly capable, widely-praised biographer.

As with Hawking's earlier book, so too here. When Isaacson's biography of Einstein appeared, a long string of major figures praised it for the way it made Einstein's work accessible to general readers. 

The blurbs were numerous and unanimous. To his credit, Isaacson may have been less sure. 

In the first few pages of his well-crafted book, Isaacson offered a thumbnail overview of Einstein's work. 

He wasn't yet making a major effort to explain what Einstein had discovered; those efforts would come later, in several stand-alone chapters. Already, though, Isaacson threw in a joke, perhaps suggesting the nature of the problem at hand.

Einstein had produced his "miracle year" in 1905, when he was just 26, Isaacson wrote. In that year, Einstein had introduced his "special theory of relativity."

Einstein's explorations had continued, and so did Isaacson's overview. Starting on page 3, Isaacson described Einstein's next great finding—the general theory. 

Isaacson described Einstein's crowning achievement. As he did, he threw in a joke:

[I]n 1915, he wrested from nature his crowning glory, one of the most beautiful theories in all of science, the general theory of relativity...

Gravity, he figured, was a warping of space and time, and he came up with the equations that describe how the dynamics of this curvature result from the interplay between matter, motion, and energy. It can be described by using another thought experiment. Picture what it would be like to roll a bowling ball onto the two-dimensional surface of a trampoline. Then roll some billiard balls. They move toward the bowling ball not because it exerts some mysterious attraction but because of the way it curves the trampoline fabric. Now imagine this happening in the four-dimensional fabric of space and time. Okay, it's not easy, but that's why we're no Einstein and he was.

The joking remark appeared on page 4. You can read Isaacson's entire first chapter here.

According to Einstein, gravity was "a warping of space and time," Isaacson wrote. Gravity was a "curvature" of those entities.

Isaacson then presented the "billiard balls on the trampoline" metaphor to explain what this meant. This metaphor is constantly used to "explain" Einstein's concept—and that's where his joke came in:

"Okay, it's not easy," Isaacson said. That's because "we're no Einstein and he was," the writer correctly said.

We'll score that comment as a joke, and as a very good one. Also, we'll score it as a vindication of Cohen's miracle column. 

Isaacson proceeded to offer a superb, clearly rendered account of Einstein's remarkable life. But when it came to describing Einstein's "universe"—when it came to describing Einstein's theories and findings—we'd have to say that Isaacson's book, like Hawking's before it, is much less lucid than the blurbs and the reviews might have said.

We don't know if Cohen and/or Krauthammer ever read Isaacson's highly praised biography. But if they did, we'll guess they would have echoed their earlier judgments concerning Hawking's book.

The reviews and the blurbs had widely said that Isaacson made Einstein easy. We'll join with the spirit of Cohen's column—perhaps with the spirit of Isaacson's joke—to say that those uniform sanguine claims are (perhaps instructively) wrong.

At this point, we'll advance our own thumbnail assessment of those uniform sanguine claims, claims which are routinely made about such high-profile books: 

They point they way to Horwich's thesis—and onward to Wittgenstein's muddle. 

Tomorrow: Cohen's observations

For the record: With this entry, we're introducing a new frame of reference—a new point of emphasis—for this site. (Or at least, so we hope.)

At some point, we'll explain these changes as the week proceeds, or at least so we expect.


38 comments:

  1. This is why white supremacism cannot be tolerated in a nation comprised of many peoples:

    "John Charity was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree intimidation after the July 5 incident outside Stop & Shop in Torrington, reported The Register Citizen.

    The victim told police he was walking his dog when the 74-year-old Charity attempted to run him over and called him a racial slur, and a witness told police he also heard the man use the slur.

    Surveillance video shows Charity backing into a parking space but then driving at a high rate of speed toward the Black man as he walks past."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, dear dembot, Connecticut is a shithole. Ruled by the liberal-hitlerian cult, so no surprise there...

      Delete
    2. "The victim told police..."

      ...yeah, and what about poor Jussie Smollett, attacked by deplorables a few years ago? Is he okay, the poor thing?

      Delete
    3. There was a witness too. But of course, African Americans always lie, right?

      Delete
    4. Sorry, dear dembot, but we don't divide Americans into African and Demoniacal.

      But you obviously do, so presumably you know what you're talking about. We defer to your reputable dembot expertise.

      Delete
    5. My point is that white supremacist thinking leads to violence against minorities. I don't hear you disagreeing with me.

      Delete
    6. https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/black-man-attacks-sikh-with-hammer-in-us-not-same-skin-2427634

      Delete
    7. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/us/asian-man-attack-new-york-suspect/index.html

      Looks like Black supremacist thinking against Asians is running rampant. Doesn't CRT demand that little Black school children must now be forced to confess their shame over these Black-led anti-Asian hate crimes?

      Delete
    8. Black supremacy isn't a thing. They didn't find anti-white hate literature in that guy's home, the way they do with these deliberate killers who target blacks.

      Most of the people targeting Asians are not black. Most are Trump supporters who blame China for covid. This man has not been caught yet, so no one knows what his motive was. Using him as a single example to suggest a black supremacy movement as virulent as white supremacists is ridiculous under the circumstances. An obvious deflection.

      Delete
    9. Gloucon, you're an idiot. When you read about the Sikh man, it is clear that the perpetrator was already upset when he came to the front desk. The Sikh workman tried to calm him down, but what he said led to the so-called hate speech:

      "Pleading with the man, the victim said, "What happened? You're my brother."

      The attacker responded "You're not the same skin," Sumit Ahluwalia said, adding that the man then "banged on my head with the hammer so hard.""

      This isn't specific targeting at all. It was a poor guy who didn't know how to defuse the situation with an obviously distraught man with a hammer, who came into the motel without even knowing the Sikh was there. Most likely mentally ill but not targeting Sikhs.

      Delete
    10. "but not targeting Sikhs."

      Targeting those of "not the same skin", dear dembot.

      Of wrong skin color.

      Just like what your liberal-hitlerian cult does, and its faithful dembots (like yourself) do.

      Delete
    11. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
      Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever














































      LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
      Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever

      Delete
  2. "when it came to describing Einstein's theories and findings—we'd have to say that Isaacson's book, like Hawking's before it, is much less lucid than the blurbs and the reviews might have said."

    If an important theory could be summed up in a few paragraphs so that a layman could understand it, a student wouldn't need years of study to become competent in the field of physics.

    Why does Somerby think that any field of knowledge that depends on years of study should be capable of being made "accessible" much less lucid to the average reader of a trade book (one not aimed at a specialist audience)?

    Somerby objects because not every book reviewer admitted to being confused by these books on Einstein's life and theory. Reviews are not about the reviewer, but about the books and their authors. When a reviewer claims that a book is clearly written and a lucid explanation, it doesn't mean that will be true for everyone, but that it will be true for someone with an appropriate background.

    This is why general education is important at the college level, and it is also why people should try to become educated in more than their college major. Because life will present other information that they may want to know something about later, after graduation. The better their preparation in a wide variety of subjects, the more such books will become "accessible" to them and will seem to be clear and lucid when read. All advanced fields will present barriers to casual readers. An author cannot possibly dumb them down to the point that anyone can understand them.

    It seems pretty evident that Somerby has large gaps in his own knowledge, even this many years after his Harvard education. He doesnt' know anything at all about quite a few important disciplines, but he passively expects authors to tell him what he needs to know about abstruse topics, such as general relativity. Most undereducated people realize their own deficiencies and skip the passages that seem opaque, finding sufficient enjoying in reading about how Einstein lived his life. Not Somerby.

    Somerby routinely mocks higher learning in his essays here, as well as the people who have acquired that learning. He thinks the learning itself must be a fraud if it cannot be communicated to him personally, as promised, in the pages of an "easy-to-read" book. He blames the authors for unfulfilled promises, but he makes no effort to meet those authors halfway, because he doesn't actually want to know about physics -- he just wants to beat those authors about the head with their own books. That is an intellectually dishonest stance and Somerby's purpose here today, as every day, is anti-intellectual. But thank God scientists go about their business despite Somerby's mockery. Thank God such books may inspire others to support scientific inquiry, to fund science and support its efforts to solve our society's problems, because we are going to need such folks more than ever as global warming worsens and new covid variants appear.

    I find myself wondering what Somerby told his 5th graders about science, or what he told his middle school math students about the importance of math. Did he know how to encourage them to persist when their homework became difficult or did he think it was his job to make everything easy? Did he then decide that it couldn't be made easy for the black students and give up on them just when perseverence was needed? Is that why he is now hinting that if he cannot understand Einstein after a few paragraphs in a book, then others cannot be understanding him either and everyone is lying and pretending to expertise that doesn't exist?

    Cannot wait to hear Somerby's justification for avoiding learning anything, based on a misapplication of Wittgenstein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perseverance as to homework and at years of incremental study is the opposite of what is billed by this particular book genre.

      Delete
    2. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 8:10pm, it’s not a complex topic when you aren’t being paid by the word.

      Delete
    4. We’ll said, Cecelia. I don’t know who funds these pompous anonymous people who so dearly love to dog Bob for providing a free blog that nobody except themselves makes them read. My God. The poor creatures are either paid to share their pointless meanderings, or more pathetic yet, do it because they think someone actually wants or needs them to.

      Delete
    5. “… or more pathetic yet, do it because they think someone actually wants or needs them to.”

      That’s too harsh, Eric. Even Anonymices aren’t that silly.

      Delete
    6. TDH is a good place to learn what the Right-wing grievance of the day is.

      Delete
    7. I thought it was fair elections?

      Oh, no! I must have missed an email!

      Delete
  3. CRT is similar to general relativity in the sense that it is taught at the graduate level and will not be well understood by the casual reader, especially someone who isn't reading CRT itself but is being handed a second or third-hand summary of what it is about.

    In this case, the right has borrowed the term CRT and is applying it to a variety of things it dislikes, which have nothing to do with CRT at all. They feel empowered to do such a thing by people like Somerby, who tell them that there is no real knowledge involved in higher learning, but that the intent is to obfuscate and not to enlighten because expertise is bunk and no one really has it at all -- this is just a big con job perpetrated by professors to befuddle the public. If that is true, then anyone can redefine phrases like CRT to mean whatever they want them to, independent of any existing literature and the professors who read it. Much like conservatives have redefined ideas related to tribes, ignoring the accumulated knowledge of the field of anthropology, its controversies and theories.

    Somerby seems to believe that expertise belongs to the masses without any expenditure of energy or effort, ignoring the efforts of those who have devoted their lives and careers to understanding reality. If Einstein can make up ideas that even Stephen Hawking cannot explain clearly, then any random conservative can do the same, even Q-Anon. Untethering jargon from reality suits conservatives (and Somerby) because it gives them a pseudo-validity that encourages followers to accept their dogma. That is Somerby's game. But to play, he must destroy the concept of actual expertise, and that is why he daily attacks the efforts of those whose job is to inform the public: journalists, teachers and professors, non-fiction authors and cable news pundits. Such people provide an alternative, ground in reality, that interferes with the propaganda efforts of the right, and thus they are dangerous. So Somerby tries to take them down. Don't be fooled by Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And then there's the reality that many of us experience, taking the "expertise" of "higher learning" into the field and finding out that the details of implementation within that chosen field are much more important when integrating into the professional community. Higher education will certainly get you fully prepared for teaching or writing works far removed from the layman's understanding.

    An inability to break complex theories into layman's terms is akin to playing in a sandbox. If you can understand the intricacies of science and knowledge, and expertly apply them, and deal with the unexpected twists of reality, you can explain to a layperson.

    Yes, I've focused on science as it applies to a career to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you break a complex thought down into terms that can be understood by a layman, you lose the complexity of that thought and the understanding acquired by the layman is not useful because it is so oversimplified. In practical terms, telling someone about the consequences of a complex idea is more useful than trying to explain the idea itself. You don't gave to explain why something works as it does, if all a person needs to know is how it works.

      The books Somerby is reading are not how-to physics manuals.

      Delete
  5. >If you break a complex thought down into terms that can be understood by a layman, you lose the complexity of that thought

    Yes, that's the goal.

    >and the understanding acquired by the layman is not useful because it is so oversimplified.

    It is precisely useful because it is simplified. How do you think managers make complex decisions that involve technical criteria?

    >In practical terms, telling someone about the consequences of a complex idea is more useful than trying to explain the idea itself. You don't gave to explain why something works as it does, if all a person needs to know is how it works.

    Now it's starting to sound like we agree. The layperson does not need to understand the details. They need an overview of the "actors" in the "system" if you will. If the technical person can't provide this, it is most likely due to an incomplete integration of their knowledge with the real world, which is what I was getting at in my last post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theoretical physicists are not trying to provide useful knowledge to layman. The applied physicists do that.

      Somerby may not understand the difference between theoretical and applied knowledge. Knowledge for its own sake helps us understand the universe but that understanding may not be immediately useful. It nearly always becomes helpful at some point down the line, but there are many who scoff at such pursuits because they don't see the application.

      Delete
    2. That's fair, but I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that "Theoretical physicists are not trying to provide useful knowledge to layman."

      The theoretical wing of science is built on and supported by the useful knowledge e.g., applied physics. It all starts with reality, and it either ends with reality or gets dumped in favor of something that does. During the interim when guesswork and suppositions are involved, the goal is to still predict and map the real world. It doesn't become invisible to laymen during this time, just much more of a challenge to explain in simple terms. But it's good practice. If you can't explain something in simple terms it is very often indicative of what I've already been ranting about (failure to integrate knowledge or in other words being sandboxed and irrelevant).

      Delete
  6. Michiko Kakutani's father was a famous mathematician. That relationship may have affected her view of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'We'll join with the spirit of Cohen's column—perhaps with the spirit of Isaacson's joke—to say that those uniform sanguine claims are (perhaps instructively) wrong.'

    My recollection is that Cohen once wrote a column about how students didn't need to be taught algebra in school. Not surprising that Cohen doesn't understand Relativity. And even less surprising that Somerby (who doesn't understand %ages) doesn't understand even special relativity. Perhaps if he spend less time defending DJT, Roy Moore and others, he might understand at least special relativity, which doesn't require more than HS maths and physics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isaacson wrote a biography about Einstein's life, just as Godel's biographer wrote about Godel's life. Those books are not about these men's work, except to tell us why they are both justly famous. Those books are about the life experiences that shaped those men and made possible their contributions. It is entirely possible to understand those aspects of both books, without understanding anything about their scientific contributions. And it is also possible to write a glowing review of such a book without understanding anything about the science.

    Somerby understands next to nothing about psychology, yet psychology is important to understanding great men. I could argue that he would not be able to understand that content of either book and that such a deficit might jaundice his impression of the books and the reviewers just as much as his failure to understand relativity or the incompleteness theorem. Would that be the fault of the books or the reviewers? I don't think so.

    Criticism, whether by a reviewer or by someone like Somerby, needs to have some reflexivity. Somerby doesn't understand much about himself (judging by his own words), so he is pretty much non-flexive and fails at reviewing because he cannot separate his own embeddedness and motives from the subject matter. He reviews these books like someone who failed introductory physics, and I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't contributing a lot to his attitude.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Criticism, whether by a reviewer or by someone like Somerby, needs to have some reflexivity. Somerby doesn't understand much about himself (judging by his own words), so he is pretty much non-flexive and fails at reviewing because he cannot separate his own embeddedness and motives from the subject matter.”

    Really? It’s Bob who is unable to do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and I'll bet dollars to donuts you have no idea what is meant by reflexivity.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I Google the big words.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for sharing. I found a lot of interesting information here avejis gadazidva A really good post, very thankful and hopeful that you will write many more posts like this one

    ReplyDelete
  11. POWERFUL LOVE SPELLS AND LOST LOVE SPELLS TO BRING BACK LOST LOVER +2348118829899 USA, UK, FRANCE, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NETHERLANDS, AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, IRELAND.

    I've gotten back with my ex boyfriend with the help of Dr.Great the best spell caster online and i highly recommends Dr.Great to anyone in need of help!.. I want to testify of how i got back my boyfriend after he breakup with me, we have been together for 3 years, recently i found out my boyfriend was having an affair with another Girl, when i confronted him, it led to quarrels and he finally broke up with me, i tried all i could to get him back but all to no avail until i saw a post in a relationship forum about a spell caster who helps people get back their lost love through Love spell, at first i doubted it but decided to give it a try, when i contacted this spell caster via his email, and he told me what to do and i did it, Then he did a Love spell for me. 28 hours later, my boyfriend really called me and told me that he miss me so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day, with lots of love and joy, and he apologized for his mistake, and for the pain he caused me. Then from that day, our relationship was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to DR.GREAT. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the Internet that Dr.Great real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact: Email him at: infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com, you can also call him or add him on WhatsApp: +2348118829899 check out his  blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com you can also visit my blog at http://donnakelvin150.over-blog.com, THANKS TO DR.GREAT..  

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for posting such a great information ……. Home Depot Return Policy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for posting such a great information ……. Newegg Return Policy


    Ulta Return Policy

    ReplyDelete
  14. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever












    LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
    Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello to everyone out here, I am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me … My name is Susan Christian , I live in London, UK. we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do, i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Emu for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 24 hours my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still love me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that Dr Emu casted on him that make him come back to me today, me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Emu for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact Dr Emu , if you need his help you can contact him through his private mail: emutemple@gmail.com or you can contact him through his website https://emutemple.wordpress.com/ fb page Https://web.facebook.com/Emu-Temple-104891335203341 and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.

    ReplyDelete