return to homepage
return to updates

A Preliminary Study of the Pyramid
as an Electrical Structure

by Miles Mathis


Abstract: In this paper I will apply my new foundational E/M field to the problem of the pyramid. I will show that the electrical field is more simply and transparently expressed as a field of higher and lower pressure, rather than of charge. Once we apply this pressure field to the problem of the pyramid, we find that the shape and density of the pyramid alone are able to focus the field in powerful ways. This will explain the use and power of the pyramid, without recourse to mysticism or esoterica.

In less than a century, Nicola Tesla has gone from being considered a mystic and marginalized character to being one of the central figures of electromagnetic science. Especially in fields such as plasma physics, Tesla is now treated with all due respect as a revolutionary and visionary. He was always respected as an engineer, but with each passing decade he is respected more and more as a theoretical scientist of the first order.

I mention Tesla because the subject I am about to discuss is still treated with the same levels of mysticism (by proponents and debunkers alike) as were the theories and experiments of Tesla in the early part of the 20th century. Just mentioning pyramids is enough to cause many mainstream scientists to roll their eyes. Even some of my loyal readers may think I have gone over the edge with this paper. But those who read on will find that I have remained on solid ground. I will treat both the pyramid and the electrical field as strictly mechanical entities; and will, in this way, continue to dissolve much of the mysticism of the standard model.

In the standard model, the electrical field is both mysterious and mystical. It is mysterious in that its mechanics is, in large part, unknown. And it is mystical in that the current explanations are full of non-mechanical interactions. Charge has never been defined mechanically. As I have shown in many other papers, attractions must be non-mechanical. Beyond that, Faraday’s field has always been no more than an ad hoc abstraction. It allows for a mathematical representation with no underlying mechanical explanation. The current explanation of charge makes use of virtual or messenger particles, both of which are defined and used in outrageously non-mechanical ways.

In a series of papers I have redefined the charge field, expressing it with simple mechanics rather than with abstract and undefined fields. To do this I have been forced, by the definition of “mechanical”, to give the messenger photon a mass equivalent. It is not virtual, and it must transfer its energy by bombardment or contact, in classical and transparent ways. This means, of course, that the foundational E/M field or charge field is always repulsive, at the level of photon bombardment.

To explain how electrons and protons appear to attract each other, given this redefinition of the field, is not as difficult as you might think. It is explained by taking into consideration the size difference between the two particles. The electron, due to its very small radius and surface area, is able to dodge most of the photon bombardment from the proton. It is driven off much less than other protons. Since the rate of bombardment between protons or nuclei is what establishes (with gravity) the stability of matter, any rate of bombardment below this standard rate will appear to cause an attraction. What we have is not a real attraction between proton and electron, but a relative attraction.

To state a simpler example. Say you have five small ball bearings and one large one. You put them all in a wind tunnel. The wind begins to blow the small bearings at a one rate and the large one at a much slower rate. The small bearings will achieve a rolling velocity A. The large bearing will achieve a rolling velocity of B, where B<A. From the point of view of the tunnel, all the bearings are being repulsed by the wind. There is no attraction. But if we look at the large bearing from the point of view of the small ones, it will appear to be attracted by the wind. The small ball bearings will tend to define themselves as the baseline. If they define themselves as “stable”, then the large ball bearing will appear to be attracted to the wind, since it is moving away from the small bearings.

This is what is happening with electricity. The protons and nuclei are the baseline set of particles that define matter. Matter is considered to be “stable” when protons and nuclei have reached a consistent state of motion, where neither gravity nor charge are causing accelerations. A state of equilibrium has been achieved. But in this state, free electrons must be moving “backwards” relative to the protons and nuclei. They are experiencing less repulsion, which, in this analysis, is mathematically and mechanically equivalent to attraction. In this state they must either be driven by winds of photons, or be sucked into close proximity to a single proton. In the latter case, they seek that point of equilibrium close to the proton, where the gravity of the proton and its emission become of equal strength.

Of course this requires that we find gravity as a measurable and important force at the quantum level, but I have already shown how to do that with simple math and postulates, in other papers. In fact, I have been able to provide a number for the gravity of the proton, starting with only simple postulates and the number for G.

You can already see how I must develop a pressure field from my analysis, given that I have already expressed my simple mechanics in terms of bombardment and “wind” and so on. In my theory, all objects are “gravitating” and all objects are emitting. Furthermore, they are all emitting and gravitating at the same relative rate. The emission of any large object is the summation of the emission of its quanta. And its rate of gravitation is dependent upon its radius, and nothing else. These two fields, taken together, provide all the motions we see. They also happen to mirror the standard model, in most ways, which is highly convenient. In other words, I am able to define gravity in terms of radius (which is highly novel) and still keep Newton’s equation as is. I am able to do this because my redefinition of the charge field—as mechanical, physical, and repulsive—exactly fills the gap. By throwing a very few simple switches, I am instantly able to explain a vast number of mysteries.

So let us proceed to explain one more. The Earth must be emitting a very powerful charge field, radially out from its surface. Now, this field is not the electric field or the magnetic field, but it underlies and causes both. It has been so far undetected for many reasons. One, we have no machines that can directly detect these photons, since we have never tried to build such a machine. We could hardly be expected to detect a field we did not know existed, and that we had never tried to detect. Two, our machines have so far been built to detect flows of electrons, and the charge field would not be expected to create free elections by itself. It would be expected to directionalize free electrons, but this is not the same thing, of course. Three, even if electrons were present and flowing with the charge field out from the surface of the Earth, our machines would not be expected to detect this. Our machines detect field flux, and without other disturbances, an electron field, of whatever density, would not create this flux. The electrons would be expected to be moving almost parallel to each other, out from the center of the Earth, and our machines are not built to detect a steady pressure like this. For these reasons and many others, our lack of knowledge of this field up to this point in history is not surprising. And the fact that we have so far not detected it (in a direct fashion) is not to the point. Neutrino flows were not theorized or detected until very recently, so it is absurd to assume that we have already theorized or detected all existing fields.5

In fact, we detect the charge field indirectly every time we detect the electric field or the magnetic field. The E/M field, as it is known now, cannot act as it does without a mechanical cause, and the charge field is that mechanical cause. The potentials and field lines cannot be caused by the electrons that are moving by them and within them: that would be a causa sui. The field lines and potentials can only be caused by a sub-field, and this sub-field is made up of what I have called B-photons. That is, by bombarding photons that are real and mechanical.

Beyond that, the charge field is detected indirectly in many unexplained phenomena and experiments. Many of the current mysteries of physics and the paranormal can be explained as detections of the charge field. The pyramid is just one of these.

In a nutshell, the pyramid focuses the charge field. But it does this in a strictly mechanical way. Mainly it does it by blocking the charge field emitted by the Earth. In this way, the size of the pyramid is very important. The greater area it covers, the greater area it blocks and focuses. The density of the pyramid is also of primary importance. The more dense the pyramid is, the more of the field it blocks.

And this is where we return to pressure. Because of the shape of the pyramid, the most blocking is done at the top. Think of the pyramid as a series of layers. Each rising layer blocks the field again. If we have ten layers, say, the lower edge of the pyramid blocks the field one time, but the uppermost layer blocks it ten times. If we give the field a pressure (and we must, since it is physical) then the least pressure is found at the top of the pyramid. The pinnacle of the pyramid is surrounded by areas of higher pressure. As we increase the distance from the pinnacle, the pressure continually increases, until we reach the areas unblocked by the pyramid, which will have “normal” pressure.

Now all we have to do is notice that electrons must move from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure. They simply follow the charge wind. And I mean this literally, not figuratively. The electrons are physically carried along with the B-photons, by direct contact. Since the B-photons must move from areas of higher density to lower—based on nothing but statistics or entropy—the electrons must do so as well. In this way, electric potential is nothing but pressure or wind or entropy. The field lines are not lines of potential, they are lines of pressure, caused by simple bombardment. Our wind here is a very fine wind indeed, which is why we don’t feel it. But quantum particles do feel it, especially the smallest, free-est quantum particles—electrons.

What this means is that a pyramid is a very efficient power generator. Given a source of free electrons, the pyramid will both attract them and focus them. All you need is a method of moving that electricity from the pyramid to where it is needed, and you have a usable grid. In fact, the great pyramids are acting as generators right now; the electricity is simply not being used. It is escaping into the Earth and Sky. And they are acting as generators without any copper covering or copper top or anything else.* It is the shape and density of the pyramid that causes it to work, not the shell or the elemental makeup. We are not looking at “skeletons” of pyramids, as it has been suggested. The stones are not a frame to support metallic conductors. The stones themselves are working to focus the charge field, and they are doing it right now.

Local people and some cameramen know that pyramids attract lighting much more efficiently than other tall structures, more efficiently even than metal lightning rods. That this is not more widely known is due to two accidents of history. The famous pyramids are found in only a few places: in the most watched of these places (Egypt) it rarely rains1; the other places (Mexico and Peru) are very remote, and tourists stay away in bad weather.

But why would pyramids attract lightning? Well, I have shown that it is a matter of pressure, and that the pressure is caused by shape and density. To see this more clearly, let us study lightning and lightning rods. A search on the web will show that the standard model is woefully incomplete regarding lightning, both its causes and its actions. The explanations might even be called infantile. According to NOAA2,

Precipitation theorists suppose that different size raindrops, hail, and graupel get their positive or negative charge as they collide, with heavier particles carrying negative charge to the cloud bottom. Convection theorists believe that updrafts transport positive charges near the ground upward through the cloud while downdrafts carry negative charges downward.

According to Wikipedia,

Falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically polarized as they fall through the atmosphere's natural electric field; Colliding ice particles become charged by electrostatic induction.

According to NASA3,

You need cold air and warm air. When they meet, the warm air goes up. It makes thunderstorm clouds! The cold air has ice crystals. The warm air has water droplets. During the storm, the droplets and crystals bump together and move apart in the air. This rubbing makes static electrical charges in the clouds.

The theory of the lightning rod is just as infantile. Wikipedia does not tell us how the rod works, just that it does. The Answer Bag4 tells us that,

They work by being physically located usually higher than surrounding structures to offer a more conducive low-resistance path to ground for atmospheric "static electricity" charges, providing an alternative to surrounding structures becoming the discharge path to ground. . . . Electrical current, like water current, will always flow through the path of least resistance. A lightning rod works similar to a spillway at a dam, providing a path for the water to go before it builds up sufficient pressure behind the dam to break or crest over the dam.

Incredible! NASA wants us to believe that lightning is caused by rubbing raindrops together. Convection theorists, on the other hand, expect us to believe that wind moving down doesn’t blow on electrons and that wind moving up blows only on electrons. AnswerBag thinks that rods work because they are higher, and that a higher point automatically creates a path of least resistance (as long as it is a conductor).

But nothing about lightning can be understood unless you recognize that the Earth is emitting a radial charge field, made up not of electrons, but of photons. All electrical phenomena in the atmosphere must take place in this charge wind. The important aspects of the lightning rod must then be the same as those of the pyramid: shape and density. The lightning rod must also be a conductor, yes, since we want to focus the electrons and conduct them safely away from protected structures and back into the Earth. But it is the shape and density of the rod that creates the path in the first place. The standard model cannot show how this path is created, but I can. It is created by blocking the charge field and thereby creating areas of differing pressure. This differing pressure is what we call potential, and it has the effect of attracting electrons. The lightning rod blocks the charge field only over the area of its cross section, but this cross section is blocked in all the atmosphere above the rod. In other words, the blocked area does not close back up, above the rod. In fact, it increases in area. It does this for the simple reason that the Earth is spherical. The charge field is being emitted radially, so that although the field lines are nearly parallel on the surface of the Earth, they are not completely parallel. The distance between these lines must increase with greater distance from the surface. In this way, the rod acts as a sort of reverse funnel. It creates an area of low pressure above it, increasing in size with greater height. In this way it is able to capture electron flows, even electron flows that are not directly above the rod.

All structures of all shapes must do the same thing, of course, but the rod does it more efficiently than most other shapes. The rod is denser than buildings or trees, and that is the most pertinent fact here: it creates a greater change in pressure over a smaller distance, and therefore creates a greater suction effect. Given a multitude of invisible funnels rising into the sky, created by various objects, the electrons will be most attracted to those funnels with the most flux, or the most change in pressure.

Only the pyramid and cone can act as greater lightning rods, given equal density, and they do it by creating greater fluxes or changes in pressure in the atmosphere above them. With equal density, they create equal changes in pressure, but because they cover larger areas at their bases, they create larger low pressure areas. This gives their funnels increased coverage, if not increased strength.

Given what we have discovered about the charge field, can we add somewhat to the theory of lightning creation during storms? Yes, since we can see that it is not the rain or the clouds or the winds that create the lightning, it is something else entirely. It is pressure that creates the clouds, the storm and the lightning; but a different sort of pressure creates the lightning, without any rubbing of raindrops or clashing of clouds. Moisture in the air certainly increases its conductivity, but it does not have much to do with the creation of free electrons. Free electrons already exist in abundance in the atmosphere, even on the driest days, so we do not have to explain charge separation or polarization, a la Wikipedia. We only have to explain the focusing and motion of charge.

Lightning always has a direction and a path. The path may be explained by the conductivity of water vapor, as I said above; but the direction must be explained as a motion from a point of higher pressure to a point of lower pressure—defining pressure not in terms of weather but in terms of the charge field. What we see is visible light discharged as electrons rush from one place to another. Therefore the electrons must have a reason to move from A to B. The lower pressure area must have a less dense charge field, since that is how we now define potential or pressure. How does a storm create that low potential area? Simply by varying cloud densities. The clouds are material and so must block the charge field just like the pyramid does, though on a smaller scale. There must be a pocket of low charge pressure above any dense cloud. This pocket must attract both B-photons and electrons.

But what of the focusing of electrons, at the start of the lightning? Why are they gathered there? We may assume that this beginning spot is also above a dense cloud, and so is also an area of low charge pressure. In this way, lightning is the motion of electrons from an area of low charge pressure to an area of even lower pressure. The electrons keep seeking lower areas of pressure, until they reach a final state, where they have no more potential difference between cloud tops to utilize. At that point they have nothing to do but disperse with the storm or find a path to the ground.

This also explains sprites, which until recently were completely unknown--since they normally occur at altitudes above ten miles. Sprites are just now being studied for the first time, and although the mainstream has rushed to propose them as an explanation for some UFO's, they admit the cause and function of sprites is a mystery. They fit into my theory here because they are above the clouds that contain lightning, and because they are already admitted to be functional. That is, they are not just a side effect, they are a cause. According to my theory, this is where the lightning is first generated. The low pressure is not in the cloud, it must be above the cloud. This is where the electrons gather, pushed by the B-photons. The sprite is a visible signal of this first gathering, as it swells and prepares to discharge fully. The electrons will be coming from many different directions, and the sprite is an output of this directional inequality. In other words, the electrons coming from weaker directions will be forced to get in line, and in doing so they will emit photons. This is what we see. Of course this is a non-technical and non-mathematical explanation, but I suspect it is the correct one.

So far I have explained horizontal lightning, but not vertical lightning. How does a difference in charge pressure explain strikes that move from cloud to Earth? Shouldn’t the Earth be a well of high charge pressure, in this regard, thereby repelling all strikes? Yes, it should be and is, which is why lightning never strikes the Earth. It always strikes objects on the Earth. Even when lightning appears to hit bare ground, we must assume there is some object near the surface of a density or shape to attract lightning. This object, like objects above ground, is blocking the field emitted by the Earth as a whole, thereby creating a pocket or funnel of low charge pressure reaching up into the sky.

Of course this begs the question of how the field is summed. If an object on the Earth is not part of the Earth, and even an object buried near the surface is not part of the Earth, what is? I give a more complete answer to this elsewhere, but the last paragraph begs its so obviously I feel I have to give a short answer here. Every object both emits and blocks the foundational E/M field. Every proton and every electron, every house and every planet and every sun. Every apple and every orange. The density and size determine both the emitting and the blocking, but they determine each in a different way. Say that our pyramid and the Earth are the same density. In that case, the Earth must be emitting much more than the pyramid, per unit area, simply because the Earth has a lot more mass behind every unit of area. Each part of the Earth blocks some of the emission behind it, but not all, so that at the surface of the Earth we have a summation of all the mass behind that surface (minus the blocked emission). This is also true of the pyramid, but the pyramid has much less mass summing behind each surface. So the Earth must have exponentially stronger emission than the pyramid, even with equal densities.

You will say that the pyramid, having only one density, must block as much as it emits, keeping the field the same above and below it, but this is not true. Any object must block more than it emits, so long as the blocked field is denser than its own. This is because it is blocking through its entire length and width, but it is emitting (in a summed sense) only from its surfaces. I say summed sense, since it is true that all quanta in the object are emitting; but the emission of the object as a whole is not a straight addition of this quantum emission. Just as with the Earth, outer parts of any object will block inner parts; and so not all parts of the object will be represented by surface emission equally. For this reason, objects block more than they emit under these circumstances.

This also explains why objects at or above the surface of the Earth act independently in many ways. As long as they have discrete surfaces, and especially if they have greater densities than the Earth, they must act independently of the main summed field of the Earth. Which is to say that they must alter the field that is emitted into the atmosphere in measurable and detectable ways, by changing the charge pressure as it rises and spreads out.

With objects above the surface (like our pyramid) this is easy to see: the pyramid must block more than what is around it, since it is surrounded by air on four sides. With buried objects, this could only work if the object had a greater density than the Earth around it, or had other distinguishing properties that would cause a change in charge pressure.


*I am not denying that one or more of the great pyramids had copper tops. They may have had. But in this preliminary study, I am only addressing the foundational field of energy and its creation. Once this energy is focused, it can be put to any number of uses. The ancient Egyptians may have used it to power their cities, or they may have used it to tap the ionosphere, or for many other purposes. These questions are factual and historical, not theoretical, and so are not of primary interest here.





5In my paper on QCD, I show that the neutrino field actually IS this foundational B-photon field, at least in the case of beta decay.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.