Peirastes

✦ About the Name Peirastēs

Peirastēs (πειραστής) comes from the Greek peira (πεῖρα), meaning trial, attempt, or experience, with the agentive suffix -stēs, "one who does." Thus, the name translates to "one who tests or tries." Aristotle spoke of the peirastic art (peirastikē, πειραστική) within dialectic—a practice of "fitting for trial," where arguments are examined to see whether they hold or collapse under questioning.

In that spirit, peirastic inquiry does not begin by seeking confirmation, but by seeking to falsify what cannot endure trial. It is the art of asking the question most likely to expose weakness, so that what survives is nearer to truth. The peirastēs is thus one who advances understanding by testing, by trial, and by discovering what remains after the attempt to break it.

✦ About the Author

I am an engineering physics instructor focused on understanding the behavior of physical systems through rigorous experimentation, mathematical modeling, and hands-on design. My work spans classical mechanics, dynamical systems, control theory, energy systems, and applied physics—with particular interest in how diverse phenomena can be unified through analogical reasoning and fundamental principles.

My approach is inherently peirastic: rather than building systems to confirm predetermined theories, I design experiments and models specifically to test their limits. I ask what assumptions fail, where predictions break down, and what remains robust under adversity. This philosophy guides all my work, emphasizing rigorous falsification, critical examination, and the systematic pursuit of what endures under scrutiny.

✦ Research Interests & Focus Areas

My research spans physics, engineering, and natural philosophy, with emphasis on systems that exhibit rich dynamical behavior and can be understood through a unified mathematical framework. The following areas represent both active investigations and sustained intellectual interests:

✦ Research Philosophy: From Theory to Trial

My projects embody peirastic inquiry at every stage. Rather than designing experiments to prove a favored hypothesis, I ask: What would falsify this claim? What assumptions break first? Where is the theory weakest?

This manifests in several concrete ways:

• Systematic testing: Projects like the Rebound Pendulum isolate specific mechanisms (coefficient of restitution, energy loss) to test energy conservation against real-world friction and inelasticity.
• Comparative modeling: The Two-Body Gravitational Free Fall project compares kinematic approximations (constant acceleration) to exact solutions, revealing where simplifications fail and quantifying the error.
• Structural analogies: Projects on physical analogies and dynamical systems investigate whether diverse phenomena (mechanics, electromagnetism, biology) share deep mathematical structures—a claim that can be rigorously tested against counterexamples.
• Real systems, imperfect data: Control systems projects (aeropendulum, thrust-vectored drone) deliberately engage with friction, sensor noise, and nonlinearities to understand what theories survive contact with reality.
• Methodological rigor: Across all work, fundamental questions precede convenient answers. Each investigation emphasizes identification of hidden assumptions, prediction of failure modes, and systematic testing of rival frameworks.

The goal is always the same: not to celebrate what works, but to understand what breaks, learn why, and move closer to truth.