About me

I grew up in Bulgaria. My mother taught physics; my father taught blacksmithing. From an early age, I lived in both worlds - theory and practice, side by side. That combination never left me. I don't just want to make things work. I want to understand why they work, and why they sometimes don't.

I was a curious kid, but a quiet one. Ballroom dance changed that. It forced me to step outside of myself, learn to communicate, and connect with people in ways I hadn't before. That experience shaped how I think about learning, teaching, and what it takes to actually reach someone.

Over time, two paths stayed with me - computers and dancing. I followed both through a master's degree in Sofia and eventually into running my own dance studio, where I developed a simple, practical approach to teaching built around voice, body, and connection. What I kept seeing was the same thing: when you find the right insight and deliver it clearly, people change. Complexity isn't the right path. Clarity is.

Ivan's Lab grew out of that belief. I kept running into questions that nobody was answering well - not because they were unanswerable, but because the people with the tools were behind paywalls, and the people with the platforms were incentivized to simplify. I wanted a place to do the work myself - carefully, publicly, and in full view - and share what I found with anyone willing to think along.

How I work

Every investigation here is a collaboration between me and AI. I use it the way you would use a sharp, tireless research partner - to build models, test hypotheses, pressure-check arguments, and surface connections across disciplines that I might not catch alone. AI doesn't replace the thinking. It makes the thinking harder to get away with doing poorly.

When I want to know whether a claim holds up, I define it clearly, establish what evidence would support or weaken it, and work through it step by step. What I publish is not AI-generated research. It is human inquiry, made more rigorous by better tools.

What you'll find here

Most of the work falls into three forms.

Essays are long-form investigations into specific questions - structured, readable, and honest about what remains uncertain.

Series go deeper. The first traces the full landscape of gravity modification - what physics actually says, who has tried to build something, and where the real openings may be.

Working notes are shorter, less polished, and closer to the research process itself - ideas still taking shape.

What I care about

I believe the truth is often already in front of us - we just don't see it, especially when it sits between disciplines. Getting it right matters more than getting it out.

Everything here is open. No paywalls, no gated tiers. If the work is worth reading, it should be available to anyone who wants to read it.

The goal is to build understanding openly, so that even if I don't reach the final answer, someone else can continue the path and turn these ideas into something real.

I would rather say I don't know yet than pretend I do. The most interesting questions rarely come with clean answers. That is what makes them worth working on.