Strings Are Dead

In 2014, I submitted my paper “A Universal Approach to Forces” to the journal Foundations of Physics. The 1999 Noble Laureate, Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft, editor of this journal, had suggested that I submit this paper to the journal Physics Essays.

My previous 2009 submission “Gravitational acceleration without mass and noninertia fields” to Physics Essays, had taken 1.5 years to review and be accepted. Therefore, I decided against Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft’s recommendation as I estimated that the entire 6 papers (now published as Super Physics for Super Technologies) would take up to 10 years and/or $20,000 to publish in peer reviewed journals.

Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft had brought up something interesting in his 2008 paper “A locally finite model for gravity” that “… absence of matter now no longer guarantees local flatness…” meaning that accelerations can be present in spacetime without the presence of mass. Wow! Isn’t this a precursor to propulsion physics, or the ability to modify spacetime without the use of mass?

As far as I could determine, he didn’t pursue this from the perspective of propulsion physics. A year earlier in 2007, I had just discovered the massless formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc^2, published in the Physics Essays paper referred above. In effect, g=τc^2 was the mathematical solution to Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft’s “… absence of matter now no longer guarantees local flatness…”

Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft used string theory to arrive at his inference. Could he empirically prove it? No, not with strings. It took a different approach, numerical modeling within the context of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) to derive a mathematic solution to Prof. Gerardus ‘t Hooft’s inference.

In 2013, I attended Dr. Brian Greens’s Gamow Memorial Lecture, held at the University of Colorado Boulder. If I had heard him correctly, the number of strings or string states being discovered has been increasing, and were now in the 10^500 range.

I find these two encounters telling. While not rigorously proved, I infer that (i) string theories are unable to take us down a path the can be empirically proven, and (ii) they are opened ended i.e. they can be used to propose any specific set of outcomes based on any specific set of inputs. The problem with this is that you now have to find a theory for why a specific set of inputs. I would have thought that this would be heartbreaking for theoretical physicists.

In 2013, I presented the paper “Empirical Evidence Suggest A Need For A Different Gravitational Theory,” at the American Physical Society’s April conference held in Denver, CO. There I met some young physicists and asked them about working on gravity modification. One of them summarized it very well, “Do you want me to commit career suicide?” This explains why many of our young physicists continue to seek employment in the field of string theories where unfortunately, the hope of empirically testable findings, i.e. winning the Noble Prize, are next to nothing.

I think string theories are wrong.

Two transformations or contractions are present with motion, Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformation (LFT) in linear motion and Newtonian Gravitational Transformations (NGT) in gravitational fields.

The fundamental assumption or axiom of strings is that they expand when their energy (velocity) increases. This axiom (let’s name it the Tidal Axiom) appears to have its origins in tidal gravity attributed to Prof. Roger Penrose. That is, macro bodies elongate as the body falls into a gravitational field. To be consistent with NGT the atoms and elementary particles would contract in the direction of this fall. However, to be consistent with tidal gravity’s elongation, the distances between atoms in this macro body would increase at a rate consistent with the acceleration and velocities experienced by the various parts of this macro body. That is, as the atoms get flatter, the distances apart get longer. Therefore, for a string to be consistent with LFT and NGT it would have to contract, not expand. One suspects that this Tidal Axiom’s inconsistency with LFT and NGT has led to an explosion of string theories, each trying to explain Nature with no joy. See my peer-reviewed 2013 paper New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories published in the Journal of Modern Physics, for more.

The vindication of this contraction is the discovery of the massless formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc^2 using Newtonian Gravitational Transformations (NGT) to contract an elementary particle in a gravitational field. Neither quantum nor string theories have been able to achieve this, as quantum theories require point-like inelastic particles, while strings expand.

What worries me is that it takes about 70 to 100 years for a theory to evolve into commercially viable consumer products. Laser are good examples. So, if we are tying up our brightest scientific minds with theories that cannot lead to empirical validations, can we be the primary technological superpower a 100 years from now?

The massless formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc^2, shows us that new theories on gravity and force fields will be similar to General Relativity, which is only a gravity theory. The mass source in these new theories will be replaced by field and particle motions, not mass or momentum exchange. See my Journal of Modern Physics paper referred above on how to approach this and Super Physics for Super Technologies on how to accomplish this.

Therefore, given that the primary axiom, the Tidal Axiom, of string theories is incorrect it is vital that we recognize that any mathematical work derived from string theories is invalidated. And given that string theories are particle based theories, this mathematical work is not transferable to the new relativity type force field theories.

I forecast that both string and quantum gravity theories will be dead by 2017.

When I was seeking funding for my work, I looked at the Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) for a category that includes gravity modification or interstellar propulsion. To my surprise, I could not find this category in any of our research organizations, including DARPA, NASA, National Science Foundation (NSF), Air Force Research Lab, Naval Research Lab, Sandia National Lab or the Missile Defense Agency.

So what are we going to do when our young graduates do not want to or cannot be employed in string theory disciplines?

(Originally published in the Huffington Post)


Honda’s Gravity Modification Research

Gravity modification, the scientific term for antigravity, is the ability to modify the gravitational field without the use of mass. Thus legacy physics, the RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories, cannot deliver either the physics or technology as these require mass as their field origin.

Ron Kita who recently received the first US patent (8901943) related to gravity modification, in recent history, introduced me to Dr. Takaaki Musha some years ago. Dr. Musha has a distinguished history researching Biefeld-Brown in Japan, going back to the late 1980s, and worked for the Ministry of Defense and Honda R&D.

Dr. Musha is currently editing New Frontiers in Space Propulsion (Nova Publishers) expected later this year. He is one of the founders of the International Society for Space Science whose aim is to develop new propulsion systems for interstellar travel.

Wait. What? Honda? Yes. For us Americans, it is unthinkable for General Motors to investigate gravity modification, and here was Honda in the 1990s, at that, researching this topic.

In recent years Biefeld-Brown has gained some notoriety as an ionic wind effect. I, too, was of this opinion until I read Dr. Musha’s 2008 paper “Explanation of Dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the Standpoint of ZPF field.” Reading this paper I realized how thorough, detailed and meticulous Dr. Musha was. Quoting selected portions from Dr. Musha’s paper:

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

V. Putz and K. Svozil,

. . . predicted that the electron experiences an increase in its rest mass under an intense electromagnetic field . . .

and the equivalent

. . . formula with respect to the mass shift of the electron under intense electromagnetic field was discovered by P. Milonni . . .

Dr. Musha concludes his paper with,

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.

Given, Honda R&D’s experimental research findings, this is a major step forward for the Biefeld-Brown effect, and Biefeld-Brown is back on the table as a potential propulsion technology.

We learn two lesson.

First, that any theoretical analysis of an experimental result is advanced or handicapped by the contemporary physics. While the experimental results remain valid, at the time of the publication, zero point fluctuation (ZPF) was the appropriate theory. However, per Prof. Robert Nemiroff’s 2012 stunning discovery that quantum foam and thus ZPF does not exist, the theoretical explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect needs to be reinvestigated in light of Putz, Svozil and Milonni’s research findings. This is not an easy task as that part of the foundational legacy physics is now void.

Second, it took decades of Dr. Musha’s own research to correctly advise Honda R&D how to conduct with great care and attention to detail, this type of experimental research. I would advise anyone serious considering Biefeld-Brown experiments to talk to Dr. Musha, first.

Another example of similar lessons relates to the Finnish/Russian Dr. Podkletnov’s gravity shielding spinning superconducting ceramic disc i.e. an object placed above this spinning disc would lose weight.

I spent years reading and rereading Dr. Podkletnov’s two papers (the 1992 “A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor” and the 1997 “Weak gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field“) before I fully understood all the salient observations.

Any theory on Dr. Podkletnov’s experiments must explain four observations, the stationary disc weight loss, spinning disc weight loss, weight loss increase along a radial distance and weight increase. Other than my own work I haven’t see anyone else attempt to explain all four observation within the context of the same theoretical analysis. The most likely inference is that legacy physics does not have the tools to explore Podkletnov’s experiments.

But it gets worse.

Interest in Dr. Podkletnov’s work was destroyed by two papers claiming null results. First, Woods et al, (the 2001 “Gravity Modification by High-Temperature Superconductors“) and second, Hathaway et al (the 2002 “Gravity Modification Experiments Using a Rotating Superconducting Disk and Radio Frequency Fields“). Reading through these papers it was very clear to me that neither team were able to faithfully reproduce Dr. Podkletnov’s work.

My analysis of Dr. Podkletnov’s papers show that the disc is electrified and bi-layered. By bi-layered, the top side is superconducting and the bottom non-superconducting. Therefore, to get gravity modifying effects, the key to experimental success is, bottom side needs to be much thicker than the top. Without getting into too much detail, this would introduce asymmetrical field structures, and gravity modifying effects.

The necessary dialog between theoretical explanations and experimental insight is vital to any scientific study. Without this dialog, there arises confounding obstructions; theoretically impossible but experiments work or theoretically possible but experiments don’t work. With respect to Biefeld-Brown, Dr. Musha has completed the first iteration of this dialog.

Above all, we cannot be sure what we have discovered is correct until we have tested these discoveries under different circumstances. This is especially true for future propulsion technologies where we cannot depend on legacy physics for guidance, and essentially don’t understand what we are looking for.

In the current RSQ (pronounced risk) theory climate, propulsion physics is not a safe career path to select. I do hope that serious researchers reopen the case for both Biefeld-Brown and Podkletnov experiments, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) leads the way by providing funding to do so.

(Originally published in the Huffington Post)

Need to Change DARPA, NSF, NASA, AFRL, NRL Funding Criteria

Over the last 12-years while conducting my research into the feasibility of gravity modification & interstellar travel, I came to realize that non of our major funding agencies, DARPA, NSF, NASA, AFRL, NRL, have a category in their BAAs for pioneering research into gravity modification or interstellar travel.

The Queen of Spain funded Christopher Columbus’s exploration of whatever could be discovered on the other side of the Atlantic. Imagine if the Queen of Spain had not done that?

Yes, search the web and you will find a lot of talk about advancing technologies but that specific technology required for interstellar travel is impossible, and in one reference someone actually said that it will become a reality between the year 2300 and 3000. Really? Have we no imagination?

I’m not sure what to make of these types of comments. Have we as a nation forgotten how to be innovative?

Has innovation come to mean doing the same things over and over again but on a bigger,  grander scale?

Or does innovation mean finding new ways to solve old problems?

Or does innovation mean finding new problems to solve?

Or does innovation mean not accepting the status quo pat answer?

Imagine if Edison had believed that the electric light bulb could only be invented in the year 3000? Or if the Wright brothers had believed that mechanical manned flight could only be possible in the year 3000? Where would we be today?

Coming back to the original premise of this posting, as a nation we cannot make the type of progress needed to facilitate interstellar travel if our leading funding authorities (DARPA, NSF, NASA, AFRL & NRL) do not recognize the need to sheperd such discoveries.

As the author of the 12-year study into gravity modification, I respectfully ask DARPA, NSF, NASA, AFRL & NRL to include a category for gravity modification and interstellar travel.


Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Thanks Brian

Thanks Brian, for the short article, Author Of ‘Introduction To Gravity Modification’ Has No Plans For A Time Machine

The book An Introduction to Gravity Modification is a serious work that took 12-years to complete.

Based on extensive numerical modeling and testing with experimental data, I have shown that the probability function associated with the photon in particular and particles in general are a modified version of the Gamma distribution (Var-Gamma) and not a Gaussian function.

The Gaussian distribution is a fundamental assumption behind quantum theory. Therefore, if the Gaussian function turns out to be a fundamental flaw and not a fundamental axiom of quantum theory, it opens up the possibility for a new quantum-type theory based on the Var-Gamma distribution.

The new photon model also shows that photonics is spectrum independent and that invisibility, cloaking, transmission, shielding and resolution are the same phenomena based on the Var-Gamma probability. Imagine if we could accelerate the development of invisibility technologies.

This new photon model provides a ‘falsifiable’ approach to subspace, and an experimental set up to verify the existence of subspace is provided in the book. Imagine the quantum leap we could achieve in space propulsion if an independent lab could experimentally verify the existence of subspace.

The second piece of this study was to show that force is exhibited when noninertial Ni fields are present, and that gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces all exhibit this Ni field, and are therefore unified by Ni fields. The formula for calculating acceleration in a Ni field is g = (tau)c^2, no mass is required! This formula has been extensively tested against the experimental data and it holds.

Imagine reaching Mars in 3 hours.

I have put forward 4 Ni field engine designs to see what we can learn about engine design. The surprising lesson is ‘smaller the better’ thus my expectation that future propulsion engines will be implemented on semiconductor chips.

If your readers would like more info they can purchase a copy of the book at the publisher’s link:

To give you an idea of how advanced this topic is, NSF, NASA, the Air Force and the Navy do not have a category for this type of technology development in their BAA request for grant proposals.



Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.


2nd Edition Press Release

I am very, very pleased that the 2nd edition of my book is fiinally, finally out!!

Press Release:

Dr. Andrew Beckwith, astrophysicist, writes in the Foreword of my book, “If Solomon is correct, then interstellar travel is possible.”

To facilitate gravity modification as a space propulsion technology and propose new avenues towards interstellar travel, I have had to take propulsion physics out of the realm of particle-based quantum & string theories while staying close to the experimental data. The discovery of the Non-Inertia (Ni) Field unifies gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces. I am sure strong & weak nuclear forces, too, but that is not my interest.

This book documents the first major break from traditional gravitational theories in 346 years, since Newton, because we don’t need to know the mass of the gravitating body to calculate gravitational acceleration. I’ve also included a test for natural versus theoretical gravitational fields.

And yes, one day in the near future, rocket engines will be replaced by semicon chips, and then only will non-government funded Commercial Space be viable.

I hope this book increases the funding for non-mainstream theoretical physics, experimental physics, and aerospace engineering, as it extends the reach of both physics and engineering to the new physics of propulsion.

The Book:

An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition

An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition

Title: An   Introduction to Gravity Modification
Subtitle: A Guide   to Using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s Experiments and the Physics of Forces   for Empirical Results, Second Edition
Publisher Universal   Publishers, Boca Raton
Year,   Pages 2012, 530   pages
Publishers   Link
1st   25 Pages, Free See   Publisher’s link for access to Amazon
Barnes   & Noble See   Publisher’s link for access to Barnes & Noble

Are there new fundamental laws of Nature that can be verified this year? Yes, a few, and all are testable today.

Can we design force field engines and shields? Yes, definitely, within this decade.

This book reaches out to a wider audience, and not just theoretical physicists, to engineers and technologists who have the funding to experiment; just as Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna and discovered the microwave background radiation. The mathematics is easier than that taught in theoretical physics and therefore accessible to a wider audience such as these engineers & technologists.


An Introduction to Gravity Modification is the result of a 12-year (1999-2011) study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification, that presents the new physics of forces by replacing relativistic, quantum, and string theories with process models. Gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces are unified by Ni fields, and obey a common equation g = tc2 (note, no mass in this equation). Yes, a unification at last. From the physics of propulsion to the engineering of propulsion engines. Answering the question, how does one build these new engines? It is all in the book. At least a start on how to do it.

Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring.  Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field . This definition excludes the use of relativistic, quantum or string theories to solve the gravity modification problem as these theories require mass, momentum exchange and conservation of mass-energy to solve their equations. This is a major shift in paradigms.

The extensive numerical modeling and the early (1999-2001) experimental data suggests that semiconductor chips will be the future of propulsion engines. Imagine by 2020 Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments & Motorola are building the propulsion engines of the future, on semiconductor chips. Amazing, not just a shift in technology, but a shift in industrial resources, too.

The mathematical discovery of the photon’s spatial probability field (governed by the new Var-Gamma probability distribution) and the new photon model leads to the definition of subspace and more importantly how one can experimentally verify the existence of this subspace. Subspace provides an avenue for interstellar travel, by seceding out of spacetime at embarkation, into subspace and merging back into spacetime from subspace, at arrival. Why is this likely? Because the new spatial probability field provides a better fit with radiation shielding experimental data than quantum theory and leads to the unification of shielding, transmission, cloaking, invisibility and resolution as a single common phenomenon.

Thank You:

This study was an exciting but definitely not an easy (understatement) 12-year journey. Many, many people participated directly or indirectly in this journey. For that, I would like to thank Dr. Andrew Beckwith, astrophysicist (PhD in Condensed Matter Theory), for writing the foreword to this book.

2011: To thank Prof. Jack Sarfatti for his informal comments that led me to sit back and think about what I was doing and why – good professors do that to you. These are addressed in the first chapter of the book, Changing The Context. That there is the physics of propulsion. No, he has not read this book, and I believe that he does not agree with my ideas but that’s OK as it happens a lot in physics. That is why we have many different theories on gravity; relativity and its sibling theories, quantum’s gravitons and the various quantum gravity theories, and the many types of string theories.

2011: To thank Dan Scheld (N-Science Corp), Kevin Lewis (Lewis & Fowler), Edgar Johansson (Colorado Space Business Roundtable) for their companies/organizations sponsoring my trip to Orlando, FL, where I presented my paper “Non-Gaussian Radiation Shielding” at the 2011 DARPA/NASA Ames 100 Year Starship Study Public Symposium.

2009-2011: To thank the reviewers at Physics Essays (2009-2011) who asked a ton of difficult questions – I almost gave up on the paper – that transformed my SEPSIF 2009 paper (An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology) into the

2011 Physics Essays paper Gravitational Acceleration Without Mass & Noninertia Fields ( that lays the foundation for the theoretical modeling of the physics of propulsion.

2010: To thank Eric Laursen, Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services, for taking time out to attend my ½ day Evergreen, CO, seminar on gravity modification in 2010. I especially appreciate this gesture.

2009: To thank Glen Robertson & Paul Murad both of whom vetted & scrutinized my SPESIF 2009 paper An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology, presented and published in the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences, International Forum, (SPESIF) AIP Conference Proceedings that would lay the foundation for writing future papers.

2008: To thank Dr. David Livingston, who had me on his internet/radio The Space Show (, more than once, in 2008 and in 2003.

2007: To thank Leonard Volpi and his team for developing Xnumbers and making it available for free. This MS Excel Add-In enables MS Excel to do calculations to 250 significant digits. MS Excel only does calculations to 15 significant digits. Much of my research and the numerical modeling would not have been feasible without this tool. And I would like to thank the Microsoft MVP (apologies, I forget his name) who informed me about this Add-In.  As an example in MS Excel c^2 = 89,875,517,873,681,800. However, with Xnumbers it is 89,875,517,873,681,764 or 36 (m/s)^2 less.

2007: To thank Mike Darschewski (formerly with GMAC Commercial Holdings) for showing that the Local Acceleration Model in a gravitational field does not have an analytical solution, and thereby strongly suggesting that the more sophisticated Schrödinger wave equation, too, does not have an analytical solution in a gravitational field.

2006: To thank Prof. Paul Joss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, who gave me the opportunity to attend his summer 2006 Professional Program in Relativity, Gravity, and Cosmology [8.06s]. That was an eye opener, that the physics community was primarily focused on the physics of astronomy and cosmology. At that time I had not fully understood this, and only realized these subtle distinctions after my brief communications with Prof Jack Sarfatti in 2011. Sometimes, subtle shifts take a long time to percolate.

2005: To thank the National Science Foundation for turning down my grant application to redo the Laithwaite Big Wheel experiments. I, then and there, resolved to solve this enigma, and I did in 2007 after the discovery of Ni fields.

2005: To thank the Mars Society, especially the Rocky Mountain Chapter, for providing the opportunity to present my work on the Laithwaite Effect at the 2005 International Mars Society Conference.

2005: To thank Bob Schlitters of Conifer, CO, who agreed to construct 50lb steel discs and related fixtures, spin them to 3,000rpm and rotate the spin vector. We stopped the experiments when the weld connecting spinning disc to its axial rod broke off and shot across the machine shop. I have not seen 3 people (Bob, my son David & myself), before or since, scramble to safety as quickly as we did.

2005: To thank Doug of Doug Balancing of Lakewood, CO who could dynamically balance these 50lb steel discs when even the race car specialist off Santa Fe Drive could not. Imagine that!

2005: To thank Marc Millis for explaining Thomas’ reproduction of Laithwaite’s experiment at NASA.

2001-2007: To thank the National Space Society (NSS) especially George Whitesides, then Executive Director, and the many staff & volunteers who managed these great grass roots conferences, for giving me the opportunity to present all my papers at the International Space Development Conferences, between 2001 and 2007; especially, the New Mexico, California, Texas and Colorado chapters. To thank the old lady who came up to me after the 2003 San Jose presentation and told me that the US Navy had investigated gravity modification in the 1960s but nothing had come of it.

2000-2002: To thank Dr. Rob Davis, Physics Department, University of Denver, and Prof. Sen & Tom (my apologies, I’ve only known him by his first name), Electrical Engineering Department, University of Colorado at Denver, who gave me access to their department labs (2000-2002) to test my proprietary circuits.

1999-2001: To thank the many professional who now remain nameless in the distant fog of time (1999-2001) who asked me “have you tried…” this and “have you tried…” that, when I showed or talked to them about my experimental results with my proprietary electrical circuits.

1990-1995: To thank Prof. Philip Bourke (University College Dublin, Ireland) who told us one day in class ‘the academics would ask “Fine if it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” while the practitioners would ask “Fine if it works in theory, but does it work in practice?”’. I found this to be amazing statement. Its implications to physics is that both theoretical physicists and experimental physicists cannot be individually correct. They are only correct when both are correct, together! (Read ‘Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty’ by Morris Kline for an indepth discussion).

To thank my wife, Anushka, and son, David, who helped me with some of my experiments and road trips to space conferences.

As Prof. James Woodward (of the Woodward Effect) said in a recent (2011) email to some of us, ‘… it has always seemed to me that there aren’t really more than about 30 or 40 serious people in the “revolutionary propulsion” community world-wide’. With the publication of this book, I hope I have made the grade.

May you live long and prosper.



Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.