“For want of a nail…”
Rational Metaphysics is the nail they were missing.
All of the world would be different now if not for the want of that nail.
…You probably wouldn’t even have heard of the name “Einstein”.
I’d rather be a hammer than a nail.
Einstein was wrong, that’s the point you seem unable to comprehend, God did in fact play dice with the universe.
“Pride cometh before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall.”
Some guy.
I see, Einstein was wrong but you are right?
That’s not what I said, I said Einstein was wrong and you are wrong.
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
Einstein.
“Stop telling God what to do with his dice Einstein.”
Niels Bohr
“God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.”
Paul Dirac
“There is only one God and Dirac is a great believer in him.”
Heisenberg.
“Pride cometh before destruction and a haughty spirit before the fall.”
Proverbs 16:18.
I’ll try to let know God that you are right about all of that.
…and I take it that you never did resolve the paradox?
…obviously not.
Ever stop and think about “playing dice”? It’s a nice metaphor for what is ACTUALLY going on, in fact. What, you think those dice rolls are literally “random”? Of course not.
Too bad physics, as James says, lacks RM. Without RM there is no way for them to avoid confusing an idea’s applied usefulness with its reality (or lack of reality). There is no such thing as randomness, just as there is no such thing as non-existence. These are approximations, albeit useful ones.
To believe in the literal existence of randomness is to believe in fairies and gods and magic and flying spaghetti monsters.
I take it your hubris is as obvious as ever, dude what paradox?
Dude where’s my car? You might actually at some point explain the etiology and etymology of dudes, where, and is, my car. 
Logic it is not : to believe some random person on the interweb has explained reality simply because they are a God botherer, and have denied reality for so long that all reality matters not a jot, is about as useful as taking your lad in hand and banging out a wank, ononism is not healthy.
Take your lad out, wank it off, and then imagine that ononism is perfect. I am fairly sure it is not… At the end of the day a wanker is still a wanker no matter what.
I suppose in your mind that actually meant something.
Haha… and you call ME a wacko… 
Expecting you to make sense is of course unlikely. I haven’t called you a wacko, but if you want to claim you are mental far be it from me to stop you.
The distinction you make is crucial, though I don’t think that RM is the only way to understand the difference. The bottom line is definitional logic.
Relativity and QM are both measuring tools, not truth-models. Meaning - you can not recreate reality using either of them, only limit the extent to which it puzzles you.
That was actually very well put. 
[dp]
That’s what I got out of the paradox resolution. Do you think it’s sufficiently resolved?
For those who actually wanted to know, I think so.
It would be nice to see MM’s explanation also, just to “verify”.
I’m sure the answer to “What is really going on” could use a little practice for everyone involved, although it isn’t really all that difficult. It takes a while for a fundamental mindset to soak in, regardless of how right it might be. They went for many years and a lot of trouble to convince everyone of Relativity and against strong resistance. I’m sure they wouldn’t be looking forward to having to repeat it yet again to correct their mistake.
The more serious question is whether you can follow all the way through that RM:AO Fundamentals thread. 
Gotcha. It’ll take some effort though.
Einstein was wrong - that is what I have been thinking since my first doubt about Einstein’s general and special relativity theory.
But the question is, “Can you answer the question posed in this, Stopped Clock Paradox” and explain why.
And to explain what is really happening would require a greater understanding of RM:AO.
I found two questions in that text:
1.) The answers to “Why?”
2.) Already a member?
My answers are:
1.) Yes, the answers to why.
2.) No, I am not yet a member.
All jokes aside.
There are really no more questions on that side, James.
I should read your “RM:AO”, maybe here, James?
The question is “Which clock will stop?” and “Why?”
First try to answer that question using special relativity concepts (no actual math required). In special relativity, the speed of light must always remain constant relative to each and every observer regardless of his own speed or the speed of the light source. So the train observer must observe light traveling toward him at exactly the same speed as the station observer sees any light traveling to the station. The paradox is that in the provided situation and according to special relativity, the light must reach both observers at the same time, but obviously cannot… and does not. So which clock stops, if either?
This thread, toward the end, answers the question (if you can sort through the argumentation).
If you are interested in RM:AO, a Unified Field Theory, you can read from several sites, one of which you mentioned;
Or another RM:AO Fundamentals.
Or in another thread here, A New Theory for a Quantum World, p14. But that one has a great deal of argumentation to skim through.