But it is defined by a scientists in agreement with the former defintion of time. If we would have lived on mars this method would have been defined as nearly as dubble of those preiods of the radiation...
Right, the quantity of periods would change if you were referencing that to , but the individual period of that atomic transition would still be the same on both Mars and Earth, as that wouldn't change depending on location.
In this sense, atomic time standards are better than orbital ones as they are more consistent.
To apply this in refutation to fossils - on mars neandertals would have existed nearly dubble the time ago of what of earth... And the universe age is dubbled in universial time looking relativly from earth age to martian age... But remeber that years are defined in the same way both on earth and on mars!!
Uh....that doesn't refute fossils. All our measurements are made using the same set of units, so merely changing the unit basis will not change the ratio of the timescales of two events.
Think of it this way:
Ratio of (e.g.) young earth age to age given by contemporary science is approx. 6,000:13,700,000,000 which is (very) roughly 1:2,000,000.
If you rescale your time unit so that each year is X times shorter, then you have: 6000X:13,700,000,000X, which still results in a ratio of (roughly) 1:2,000,000, as the X is a common factor and cancels out.
It doesn't matter what you change your time unit to, the result is still the same, and events will still (proportionally) take the same length of time relative to a reference interval of time, will still occur in the same order, etc.
) -- to alert the reader that you are just joking.
