** Next:** About the reticence concerning
** Up:** Conclusions and discussion
** Previous:** About the choice of

The main reason to reject the seconds pendulum was
``*to have a unit of length that does not depend
on any other quantity*''[2]. Now we think
exactly the other way around,
and prefer a system with a minimal number of units
connected by physical laws, as it was suggested first by
Burattini in 1675
(see Appendix B). Besides cultural aspects, that make
change `what is perceived as natural' with time,^{40} we find
a certain contradiction in the use of
the naturalness concept expressed in the *Rapport*[2].
Why not to extend it also to the weight unit, instead
of binding, as it is known,
this unit to the unit of length and to the density of water?
A similar comment applies
to the right angle as the ``*natural angle*'' to justify
the quarter of meridian
(see Guedj's quote
in subsection 7.2): the right angle is certainly
the natural one for a square or a rectangle, but why should it
be natural for a circle, where there are no
angles?
(At most, if there were an angle to be considered natural,
that would be the radiant, as all those who use trigonometric functions
of computer scientific libraries know).

** Next:** About the reticence concerning
** Up:** Conclusions and discussion
** Previous:** About the choice of
Giulio D'Agostini
2005-01-25