It doesnt blow because c is independent of the speed of the emitter.
Actually that’s exactly what the lorentz transforms say so mathematically Einstein basically plagiarised them and his theory fell out of its constancy.
“the secret of good science is knowing how to hide your sources.”
Albert Einstein.
In claculus time and motion are dependant variables that can be derived directly from speed and the speed of that speed is a second order differential of that. In other words speed = time/distance and acceleration = ms^-2 or m/s^2
Velocity is the derivative of its position in time. Hence x’=x hence or f(x) = f’(x) or d/dx is the derivative of dx/dt where d is a variable called distance related to an invariant quantity called time or aka as transform 90 degrees or lorentz transform. Space/time is hence relative, hence the theory and hence God botherers being all pissy about some German Jew who was possibly at the very least a deist.
c is a constant and invariant, it is the opposite of independent, it in fact is always exactly what it is. Hence the theory of special relativity, if it were not what it was the energy would not be equal to mass over distance squared, it would be something else and non constant. That’s the point and that’s why there are no inertial frames of reference and hence why it is impossible to establish if something is inertial relatively, only that it is moving relative to something else. Once you understand this it is obvious why time is a constant and is relative, if you don’t get it though don’t worry, the universe wont fail without your comprehension. 
It’s called intelligent falling, Gods keeping everything down. 
I know that the mathematics does not allow for simultaneity. That’s the whole point of the paradox. But the mathematics isn’t equal to the universe. The mathematics is simply limited in its capacity to explain. The paradox shows where the math fails, is unable to make sense of the situation. Different maths are needed when we do have simultaneity.
Dont worry though, no need for you to understand, the universe will keep existing regardless.
If you only have a formula for a circle and you come face to face with a square, I guess you would say that the square can not exist but must be interpreted as a failed circle and the guy who brought it to you is a crackpot.
It’s a good job then that despite James insistence the maths running the global positioning satellites works then isn’t it with no error to allow for both the relative speed of Earth and the satellite in a defined but non inertial reference frame, in a gravitational well somewhat near 1g since it compensates both for special and general relativity in a reference frame called Earth and not in a reference frame called outside the universe AKA God done it or it doesn’t have to make sense 'cause I say so, etc.
I do understand though, and hence I also understand the universe working.
No I’d say what you have there mate is a square, if it had failed to be a circle it would be not a circle. However in non Euclidean geometry it is possible for a circle to be a square and vise a versa, it’s called eliptical geometry and parabolic geometry which incidentally is what Einstein used in his general relativity. You don’t need to understand intelligent falling either but I’m sure God would appreciate the credit.
GR is modelled in minkowski space, a 4 dimensional construct of space time with i being x,y,z,t and pi equal to a variable rather than a constant. There’s a reason they say you can’t square a circle you know, even though you can.
Pasta be with you.
Haha, yes indeed.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Hence the twins paradox, one twin leaves Earth and accelerates to light speed and then returns, when they are both back together it is apparent that the twin who stayed on Earth is younger than the other twin. The only difference being their relative speed or in fact acceleration and of course one twin being exactly x amount of time it took the other twin to travel there and back and the other twin being exactly older by the amount of time it took to accelerate and return to Earth. There isn’t a paradox there or in fact in the maths, there is just time and space and relativistic mechanics which makes time dependant on space and vice a versa, you may hear people say time is not a concept, they are of course wrong but for the right reasons. The speed of light is a constant, this is an inductively reasoned argument from precise equations, and the basis for calculus itself as proposed by Newton and Liebniz who came up with the idea simultaneously. Nothing without mass can propagate at less than c which includes photons of light, and nothing with mass can propogate at >.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c which includes everything that is not energy or matter as we call it. The antiparticle of light is light. Light is believed to be massless, we are pretty sure it is, as sure as we can be with the measuring equipment we have that is.
Energy=mass x the speed of light squared the photon is a single quanta or packet of light. Many quanta of light are a wave packet of light which all have the same group velocity which is c, if light were able to propogate slower or faster than itself the result would be cherenkov radiation, where the phase velocity would be less than the group velocity and vise a versa.
Nuclear reactors produce c herenkov radiation. It’s a direct consequence of mass being equivalent to energy, which is why Einstein kept banging on about it.
Einstein however is not God.
“God does not play dice with the universe” is oft quoted as coming from Einstein. Problem is of course probability is as intrinsic to maths as maths is to physics, maths is simply reality laid bare as Euclid opined.
This prompted Niels Bohr the father of the Copenhagen interpretation to tell Einstein to stop telling god what to do with his dice, and lead to the famous Solvay conference where the young pretenders Bohr, Heisenburg, Dirac, Pauli et al won over the old guard of Le place and Einstein, Schroedinger et al.
Nature is another way of saying natural philosophy which is another way of saying science which is another way of saying as close as we can get to truth.
The Relativity clock stops for those who see the light from both angles at the same time.
The paradox is what to do with blind authorities. 
Get them to turn up to the Solvay conference and put their money where their mouths are, I’d of thought that point was self evident. 
Casting a stone is one thing, delivering it into the eye of Goliath is another (getting ME to turn up at the Solvay conference would be the greater challenge).
Getting you to turn up to a conference that happened nearly a hundred years ago to explain why science is wrong in detail so that you can face the music is a little out of my league, and Gods league for that matter.
“I am right and you are wrong.”
The refrain is self defeating, even contemplating going back to challenge Einstein, Le Place, Schroedinger etc would require them to have been right, I think people like Dirac, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg etc clearly won the argument, what do you think you could do in your hubris.
“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… 