The definition of a second isn't based on the Earth's motion, but some natural phenomena like you recommended. "The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." [1]
That's just simply not correct - scientific endeavour and the scientific method is an ongoing prospect. You never actually solve anything, instead you refine the parameters in which a given solution is deemed correct.
Newton "solved" the equations of gravity, Einstein "solved" them too, and now quantum mechanics is "solving" them yet again. None are wrong, but also none of them make the problem solved.
The idea of a "solved problem" in science is a dangerous one IMHO.
Interesting how this is the case, because that was one of the key goals of the site when they were first building it.
I listened to Joel and Jeff talk about it in their early podcasts when they were first building the site. To be the definitive answer for a question requires that the answer be able to change and evolve over time as new information becomes available.
I'm definitely not agreeing with that article's perspective, just thought it provided a contrasting point of view. Not sure my comment deserved a downvote though (ouch!) :)
That's definitely a good point about the journals not adding enough value. I think it's clear they've placed themselves into a bit of a position where they hold most of the cards and that really does need to change.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winograd_Schema_Challenge