The harsh limits of reality
An honest analysis of the physical problems with the Resonance Theory: SAR penetration, piezoelectricity, and amplitude limits.
Physics doesn't care about fascinating narratives. It asks one simple question: Does it work?
And here we must be honest. There are serious physical problems with central claims of the Resonance Theory.
Filippo Biondi claims to have found structures 600 meters deep below the Giza Plateau using SAR tomography (Synthetic Aperture Radar).
The Technical Reality:
SAR systems, even the most modern satellite systems like Umbra Space, Capella, or ICEYE, have fundamental physical limitations:
| Material | Typical Penetration Depth |
|---|---|
| Dry sand | 1-2 meters |
| Wet soil | A few centimeters |
| Limestone | Maximum 15 meters |
| Granite | Even less |
Why? Electromagnetic waves are absorbed by water. Every rock contains moisture. The deeper you go, the more signal is lost.
SAR Penetration Depth: Biondi's Claim vs. Physical Reality
Biondi points to validation by the Gran Sasso Laboratory. But the details of this validation are not publicly available. Without peer review, this remains a claim.
The theory postulates that the quartz content in the pyramid's granite forms a piezoelectric system. Pressure from earth tides creates electrical voltage.
What's Correct:
The Problem: Amplitude and Orientation
Piezoelectric crystals in natural granite are randomly oriented. Their charges largely cancel each other out. To produce a usable effect, the crystals would need to be aligned - as in artificial piezoelements.
Even if we assume that some net effect exists, the generated voltage is negligibly small:
Piezoelectric coefficient of granite: ~1.4 × 10⁻¹⁵ C/N
With earth tides deformation: Microvolt range
This is not enough to generate a field that produces any measurable effect.
The Schumann Resonance exists. This is scientifically confirmed. 7.83 Hz as the fundamental frequency, measurable between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere.
The Problem: The amplitude is tiny.
The Schumann Resonance has a magnetic field strength of approximately 1 picotesla. For comparison:
| Source | Field Strength |
|---|---|
| Schumann Resonance | 1 pT |
| Earth's magnetic field | 25,000,000 pT |
| MRI scanner | 1,000,000,000,000 pT |
| Cell phone reception | 10,000 pT |
The Schumann Resonance signal is 25 million times weaker than the normal Earth's magnetic field. It is so weak that highly specialized equipment is needed to measure it at all.
Magnetic Field Amplitudes in Comparison: Schumann Resonance is 50 Million Times Weaker Than Earth's Magnetic Field
The claim that this signal influences the human brain has no scientific basis. Our brains generate electrical fields that are orders of magnitude stronger.
There is a genuine scientific study that is often misquoted:
Researchers at ITMO University published a 2018 analysis in the Journal of Applied Physics showing that the Great Pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy.
What the study actually said:
The study was largely misrepresented by alternative media. The authors themselves made no esoteric claims.
Geoffrey Drumm's theory that the pyramids produced ammonia has a fundamental problem:
The Haber-Bosch process (industrial ammonia synthesis) requires:
The Problem: 150 bar equals 1,500 tons per square meter. Limestone would be pulverized under this pressure.
It is physically impossible to conduct such processes in stone structures. If the pyramids actually produced ammonia, it would have to be an entirely different process - one unknown to us.
The theory postulates:
The individual steps are plausible. But the direct causal connection "Moon influences Schumann Resonance" is not addressed in the scientific literature.
There are no long-term studies showing how the Schumann Resonance would behave without the moon. This is logically coherent speculation, but not verified science.
These objections are real. They cannot be explained away.
Possible Answers:
The theory is wrong. The most elegant explanation. The pyramids were tombs, and all alternative explanations fail at physics.
The mechanisms are different. Maybe there was a low-pressure process for ammonia synthesis we don't know about. Maybe SAR penetration works differently under certain conditions.
We don't fully understand the physics. Historically, many "impossible" things were later explained. But this is a weak argument - "Science could be wrong" can justify anything.
We must accept:
This doesn't mean all aspects of the theory are wrong. But the specific mechanisms proposed have serious problems.
A good theory must address these problems - not ignore them.
Physics asks hard questions. But science is made by people - people with motives, careers, and blind spots. Who are the figures behind the Resonance Theory? And can we trust them?
The physical limits are real. But are there also problems with the people behind the theory?
The physical limits are real. But are there also problems with the people behind the theory?