Ok, first, you've got the definition of the time unit "second" incorrect.
Generally, if you find that you seem to have uncovered physicists behaving in a grossly silly fashion, it is good to investigate a little more carefully. Maybe they are being silly, but it's not the way to bet.
Next, Bell's theorem is a little more subtle than that. It does not imply non-locality. What it does is say that quantum physics predictions can be distinguished from classical physics predictions of a particular kind, particularly classical physics predictions that are both local and deterministic.
And that means we need to know what local and deterministic each mean.
Deterministic means you set up an initial situation and then the results will be specific and determined by the initial setup. One frequent poetic explanation is a clockwork physics.
Local means that information cannot propagate outside the light cone. You can't get messages faster than the speed of light.
QM is local in that sense, but not deterministic.
Bell's theorem shows a situation where any possible local and deterministic physics will be distinguishable from QM. So, it pushes very hard for us to give up local-and-deterministic physics.
But it does not say "give up locality." Since QM does not give up locality.
And it's actually OK. You can't send messages faster than light using things like Aspect's experiment. So even though such tests do come down in favor of QM they don't tell us we need to kill locality.
A comment asked about the meaning of time. Physics gives an operational definition of time. We see motion. We define time so that motion looks simple. There is a nice description of this in the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. (Bring a shopping cart. The book is HUGE.) I hope this link comes through. If not, google for the phrase "time is defined so that motion looks simple" and you will see it in one of the first few hits.