Clive Tickner
Clive Tickner | |
|---|---|
| Residence | Southwold, Suffolk, United Kingdom |
| Nationality | British |
| Known for | Criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity, published in GSJ |
| Scientific career | |
| Fields | Physics, relativity |
Clive Tickner is a British independent researcher based in Southwold, Suffolk, United Kingdom, known for his critical writings on Einstein's theory of relativity and related topics in cosmology. He is a prolific contributor to the General Science Journal (GSJ), where he has published dozens of papers, essays and communications challenging mainstream interpretations of modern physics.
Biography
Tickner is an independent scholar who works outside the conventional academic system. In the credential lines of his papers he lists a B.A., a BSc, and a diploma in theoretical physics from Stanford University. He resides in Southwold, on the Suffolk coast of England, and has been active as a writer on physics since at least the mid-2010s, maintaining a steady output of papers into the 2020s.
Work
Tickner's writing focuses on a sustained critique of special relativity and general relativity. Recurring themes in his work include arguments against time dilation and length contraction, questions about the physical reality of black holes, and challenges to standard cosmological models such as the Big Bang.
Among his papers published in the General Science Journal are "The definitive trouncing of time dilation" (2025), "The definitive trouncing of length contraction" (2025), "Light can only be 'bent' by refraction" (2025), "The 'Looking back in time' delusion" (2025), "Questioning the Event Horizon Telescope's First Image" (2026), "Criticising the Relativistic Visualization of a Black Hole in 'Interstellar'" (2026), "A Critical Reassessment Of The Big Bang Hypothesis" (2026) and "Does the Global Positioning System Operationally Require Relativity?" (2026). His essay "How Relativity Shaped- and Stalled- Physics" (2025) presents his broader thesis that relativity, in his view, redirected and impeded the development of physics.
His work is presented as a dissident critique of established physics rather than as mainstream, peer-reviewed research, and his arguments are not accepted within the physics community.