There’s a Battery Above Your Head Right Now – Tesla, Mathis, Charge and misdirectrion
Wed 9:31 am +00:00, 30 Sep 2026
Source: https://milesmathis.com/tesla4.pdf
by Miles Mathis
September 28, 2026
Or more precisely a capacitor.
This is a response to a Youtube video by Glen Pritchard, who gets a lot of stuff right in the first
moments but then goes far far off-track. This is what he gets wrong. I do this to show you how my
charge/electrical theory is different from the mainstream and the alternative guys alike, and how it
easily explains things they have never been able to explain.
The first thing he says that is wrong is that although there is a strong voltage difference as you rise in
the atmosphere, you don’t die from it because the air is a terrible conductor. Partially true, but not fully
true, since you don’t die because you are conductor yourself. This is why people get struck by lightning
even when better things to hit seem to be nearby. No, you can’t safely conduct huge voltages, but you
not only conduct small voltages all the time, you live on this charge passing through you, just like
everything else does. You feed on it almost as much as you feed on normal food. Which is why I said
in a previous paper it was a mistake for humans to wear shoes with rubber or plastic soles, or to sleep
on plastic beds or bedding over plastic flooring. You become charge starved, and a good percentage of
Modern aging is due to that. Foot problems are due to that. If you want to live longer, quit doing that.
Next, Glen asks where that voltage comes from. He correctly says it comes from the ionosphere, but
then admits it would discharge completely in about half an hour if it weren’t always refilled. So how is
it refilled? He says it is from thunderstorms. Again, partially true, but not really a good answer, since
thunderstorms also have to be refilled somehow. So they are another effect, not a cause.
Glen is missing my charge field. The charge field not only continually recharges the top plate of the
capacitor, the ionosphere, it continually recharges the bottom plate, the Earth, which is recycling this
Solar charge field on a second path. It comes in from the Sun in the form of photons, cycles into the
poles on huge vortices (which also cause aurorae and lots of other things, including cold poles), passes
through the Core, which is where we get most of our heating—not from dynamos—and then is reemitted everywhere, peaking at 30N and S. So charge is actually moving both up and down, creating
the link between Earth and sky. This is why you can see lightning moving in both directions.
We also have photons and antiphotons, charge and anticharge, making this even more complex, but we
will skip that for now. I am publishing this on both my sites, so I don’t want to completely lose my
non-science readers. But they should know I invented the idea of anticharge and antiphotons. Also
invented the idea of anticolor.
Next we hit the Carnegie Curve, and Glen tells us this sine wave variation in the atmosphere is the
same all over the world, following universal time rather than local time. Meaning, it doesn’t follow the
Sun rising and setting, like local clocks. It is the same everywhere on the Earth. Glen says this is
because the variation is tracking the thunderstorms, which are worldwide. Nope, both the
thunderstorms and the Carnegie Curve are tracking the same thing, so they are both effects. So one
can’t be the cause of the other. They are both caused by the charge field coming in from the Sun, and
this incoming field sets its own time because it is just one thing. It doesn’t reach some parts of the
Earth earlier than others, because it isn’t tracking a sunrise and sunset. And that is because it isn’t
falling down from the Sun from above upon a spinning Earth. It is being pulled as a whole into the
poles, bypassing this spin, you see. There are no spin variations at the poles, no sunrise and sunset.
The field then recycles through the Earth, as I said above. So it is coming up from below. This makes
it come out at the same time everywhere, so the cycle and curve are the same everywhere.
Glen and all like him are following Tesla here and Tesla knew this, so I am not sure how this has been
forgotten. No, Tesla didn’t know about charge recycling, or at least not to the extent I know about it,
but I assume he knew there was a field coming up from below as well as a field above created by the
ionosphere. You will say of course Glen and Tesla know that, since Glen is using that field of the
Earth to seed the ionosphere. Glen says (minute 3) that “the thunderstorms are shoveling charge back
upward”. If so, why does most lightning go down, appearing to shovel charge back down? Well, the
answer is a bit more complex, since we have a dual field here, but the broader and more general answer
is that thunderstorms don’t need to re-seed the ionosphere, since the Sun is continually re-seeding it
himself, via sunlight and charge coming down. The Sun is re-seeding both sides of the capacitor all the
time, though with different charge paths. It is the Earth’s spherical shape and its spin that creates the
possibility of this cycle and recycle. The voltage difference is caused by difference in the two paths.
One path creates a stronger field than the other, giving us a potential across the atmosphere, you see.
One side of the capacitor has more charge than the other side. And, contrary to the assumption of
almost everyone, the up path is actually stronger. As a simple matter of force, the main arrow of
charge is up, opposite to gravity, which is of course down. This is what holds up the atmosphere,
allows planes to fly, and drives the sap. But when we look at EM, it can go either way, depending on
the question at hand. Ions can be driven either up or down, depending on their real spin.
Next, Glen asks what carries that current down through the air, since air is a terrible conductor. He
says it is ions (like free electrons and free protons). Again, partly right, but not precisely right.
Already you should see the contradiction here. He said before that thunderstorms shovel charge
upward. Now he is saying ions carry current down. But if charge is moving up, how can current be
moving down?
What carries everything in the atmosphere and everywhere else is the ever-present charge field, which
exists even in a vacuum. It is made of real photons and it is what carries ions wherever they go, not
only with their speed of c, but with real spin. Every photon has a real spin. So the ions are another
effect here, not a cause. They do move and carry energy, but they don’t move on their own and are not
the base cause of anything. Like electrons near the nucleus, they are just buoys in the field, telling us
how charge is moving and spinning at that point in the field.
So as usual, both the mainstream and the alternative theorists have everything upside down. They think
the Earth and ionosphere are causing ions to do something, either move up or down or gain density or
lose it. But while that is happening, it isn’t the baseline here or the fundamental cause. The charge
field is the driver of everything, with the Earth, the ionosphere, and all ion fields just an effect of the
charge field. But since the mainstream doesn’t know that, they always miss the first cause and the
primary field. They always leave out player #1, which is 95% of the field as a matter of energy.
Which is of course why they have vacuum catastrophes and dark matter meltdowns, and why they
fudge all their Modern equations with time reversals, quasiparticles, particle holes, tunneling,
entanglement, borrowing from the vacuum, and every other awful cheat.
Glen then tells us there are “only two things making ions in the atmosphere”: cosmic rays coming from
deep space and radioactivity coming out of the ground (radon gas, he says). Nope, completely and
horribly wrong on both counts. There is no way the Earth’s capacitor and voltage could be created by
those two things. See my paper on the Earth’s Core, where I destroy this radioactivity theory very
quickly and completely. All those radio-isotopes have real half-lifes and should have burned out
millions of years ago. Charge from below isn’t coming from that, it is coming from recycling charge
coming in from the Sun. This charge then moves up, partially seeding the ionosphere by driving ions
up. In a similar way the Sun is also seeding the ionosphere from above via the powerful Solar wind,
which creates the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere and ionosphere are two outcomes of the same
thing: interaction between the Sun and the Earth. Cosmic rays do create some ions, just like
radioactivity, but the ionosphere as a whole isn’t created by them. And all radioactivity is an effect of
the charge field as well. As such, it is the cause of nothing.
So that was a big miss. It is painful to me to see Glen misdirecting so egregiously from the universal
charge field here, trying to explain these voltages from radioactivity and cosmic rays. Maybe he is just
parroting the mainstream ignorance, or maybe he is allowed on Youtube because he is blocking for the
mainstream here. I don’t know. Maybe the rest of the video will give us some clues.
Actually, there is a clue directly after that, where, at minute 6, he says “that is why the current is what it
is. Not because anyone is hiding anything, but because the air is only slightly conductive.” Hmmm, he
seems to be talking directly to me there, doesn’t he? So it pretty amazing I saw that coming. I am
writing this as I watch the video, if you haven’t figured it out. That is how I always work, writing as I
go. I got suspicious, and the very next moment my suspicion is confirmed. I now think this video was
fed to me, but Glen is going to wish it wasn’t.
I was also wondering why his video was full of top-of-the-line AI illustrations. Now I think I know.
Keep reading.
Right after that he says, “Two centuries of extremely clever people all reached the same conclusion.”
Ah, letting it all hang out now, isn’t he? I couldn’t be right where 200 years of geniuses were wrong.
That old logical fallacy: the majority is always right. How long before he calls doubters cranks or
egomaniacs?
But there is an easy response to that. If established science is always right, because old scientists are
smart people, how did we ever get past Aristotle? Aristotle was an extremely clever person, and all his
followers were also extremely clever. Far more than two centuries of them. They were also
completely wrong about everything. Science is about progress: moving past the clever people of the
past, not forever bowing to them and failing to question them.
Glen next goes back to 1752 and Ben Franklin. That’s actually more than 200 years ago. It’s 274 years
ago, before anyone knew anything about any of these questions. They didn’t have an electron, a
nucleus, a proton, an ion, an ionosphere, or anything else we have been talking about. So what is Glen
doing? Let me guess: arguing by authority again, dropping a pretty, fake picture of Franklin to stand
against me. And weird that Franklin looks like one guy in the first AI fake, and a completely different
guy in the second, and neither one looks like the real Franklin. This is reason one of a million why I
hate AI.
Glen admits Franklin may not have actually run his experiment with the key and the kite, but he says
other people did and they were right: it proved the atmosphere was electrically charged. Hmmm, I’m
not arguing with that, but it does seem to conflict with his previous section, where he claimed the
atmosphere was a terrible conductor. .000001A. Seems to conduct lightning pretty well, with or
without a kite and a string. Is Glen claiming a kitestring is a great conductor? How does that work?
How does a key on the lowest end of a kitestring turn the whole string into a conductor that can
conduct a lightning bolt? Glen says Franklin’s experiment proved charge can be conducted down a
wire, but no one was flying a kite on a metal wire. So that comes out of left field.
It gets worse, since the next section is about Glen selling Marconi over Tesla. It is at this point I can
see all his viewers leaving, since the only people that would be interested in this video are Tesla
supporters. I am about to give up myself, since this is going nowhere.
However I will report that in the next section Glen gloats that Tesla died alone in a New York hotel in
1943, and that although his papers were seized by the government, they were worthless. Right. An
MIT engineer confirmed Tesla’s papers were “speculative and philosophical”. The name of the
engineer? John G. Trump. Need I go on?
No, but I will. What Glen doesn’t tell you is that Trump organized the High Voltage Engineering
Corporation just two years later:
They received one of the first three investments of the American Research &
Development Corporation, ARD, the first modern venture capital firm. As chairman,
Trump oversaw the company’s growth and debut on the New York Stock Exchange.
HVEC became the largest global supplier of research particle accelerators as
government funding for nuclear science expanded, and later diversified into
industrial products.
That’s straight from Wiki. So Trump quickly became a millionaire. Just a coincidence, I’m sure. No
doubt they are waiting for me to die so they can do the same thing. So you know,
ARD emerged from efforts led by MIT president Karl Compton and Boston Federal
Reserve president Ralph Flanders.
Flanders’ brother Donald was part of the Manhattan Project fraud. He himself was also heavily
involved in the HUAC fraud.
Anyway, we have already discovered this Youtube video isn’t about a $30 Tesla roof antenna, it is
about continuing the heavy propaganda surrounding both Tesla and myself.
Next Glen says Tesla’s papers are all in a museum in Belgrade, and that anyone can study them. So
they aren’t hiding anything and no conspiracy. Any proof of that? No. Yes, there are some papers
there, but we have no proof they are Tesla’s complete papers, or that they are Tesla’s papers at all. I
would assume they are like the Warren commission report or the 911 commission report. But the
bigger question here is, “If Glen is selling the idea of Tesla antennas here, why is he going so far out of
his way to blackwash Tesla?” Seems strange, doesn’t it?
So, we have already caught Glen lying and misdirecting over and over, so I would assume everything
he says in the second half of the video is also a lie. He told us in the first part there was a huge voltage,
but now he walks that back, saying you can only collect two picoamperes per square meter or 3.5
microamps per square kilometer. Next to nothing. But is that per hour, per second, or what? Notice he
doesn’t tell you. Maybe it is per picosecond. But it isn’t believable regardless. There is no way an
available voltage so great can create such a small current, no matter how bad a conductor the
atmosphere is. And if Herman Plausen was using wires to bring current down from a balloon, he
wasn’t using the atmosphere as a conductor, he was using the wires as a conductor, so doing math on
the atmosphere alone isn’t to the point.
Also doesn’t explain lightning, which is able to transfer incredible amounts of energy through this
horribly conducting atmosphere without wires or plates. So there must be some way to do it.
Also doesn’t explain something else Tesla invented: Wifi. Wireless conduction through the atmosphere.
So apparently the atmosphere isn’t such a terrible conductor.
And I remind you again: if the main motion of charge is up, not down, then measuring the current
down is total misdirection to start with. Tesla plugged his lightbulbs into the ground, so he wasn’t
harnessing charge coming down, he was harnessing charge coming up. Yes, he was using the link to
the sky to use the atmosphere as a capacitor, but the energy he was collecting was coming up, not
down.
One final question for Glen. Hey dude, have you ever heard of Head and Shoulders?
You may think I got him there, but I now think there isn’t any him. He is AI himself. This channel has
only been up one month but already has 24 videos and 2.5 million hits. And if we search for
information on him, the computer doesn’t know who he is. There is a Glenn Pritchard, an electrical
engineer in PA, but this is Glen Pritchard. Not the same guy, though it looks like they want you to
conflate the two.
So it is AI that lost to me again, which is even better.
And that leaves us with just one last question. Why would AI create a guy with dandruff? Because it
works by scraping the internet, and it scraped some guy with dandruff but forgot to clean it in some
sections.
About half the comments are onto him and the other half look like bots themselves.
Doesn’t matter, except that it gave me another opportunity to explain my theory and provide the old
links again.
