Talk:Mecca Time

Can we delete this article?
I've never heard such a ridiculous thing, the "references" are to news articles as there is absolutely no scientific claim that these people actually make. there is no center of the earth on it's surface. If we keep this article it should be noted that this is just a quack theory.

what is the true center of the Earth?
What is the "true center of the Earth"? Unless you think the Earth is a flat surface this makes no sense. Rune X2 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For that matter what is "Muslim scientists"? The Wikipedia article [Muslim scientists] is just a list of scientist whom happens to also have been Muslims. But this Mecca Time article seems to use the term in some other sense, as "scientist" whom use the Koran as their inspiration or some such thing. Rune X2 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The true center of the Earth has an article. It's just not Mecca...ospalh (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecca Watch
During the conference in Qatar in April 2008, the Mecca watch was introduced. This watch is the invention of a French Muslim and features a counter-clockwise movement that helps its wearer to determine the direction of Mecca from any point on Earth. At the same conference, a paper was also presented that promoted the adoption of Mecca Time as an alternative to the well-established Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

Sorry nothing says that it was "introduced" nor an "invention". cut and removed until Afd is finished. - Bp E ps - t @ lk 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

UTC?
How does "Mecca Time" relate to UTC? --91.84.104.77 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ((39.826111/360)*24 hours) --91.84.120.14 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"removed obvious statement"
Hi everyone. The statement in the introduction, that Saudi Arabia is on the surface of the earth, was just removed as it was an "obvious statement". I agree, I think it's quite clear (dare I say, verifiable) that Saudi Arabia is on the Earth's surface.

However, this article is about the idea that this place is "the true center of the Earth", so some people (significant enough to have a wikipedia page about the idea) seem to disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.33.0 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentions
"The North Magnetic Pole is on longitude 110.8° W, going through Canada, the USA, Mexico and Antarctica. The opposite longitude is 69.2° E, which misses Mecca by approximately 29°."

What is the basis to this claim? As there are no references thus I am inserting a a Citation Needed template until further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan2009 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated. 91.85.179.143 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 tidy
Hi everyone. I've tidied up the article a little bit, introducing better references to the Mecca Clock and I found some better criticism of the concept rather than the wishy-washy statement on the end of the BBC piece which sounds more like criticism of the criticism. I've also added this to the list of proposed prime meridians on the prime meridian page. --91.84.120.14 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic declination misses the point.
Magnetic declination is not relevant to this topic. To redefine the world's time zones, you need a prime meridian. Our current one goes through Greenwich, but Greenwich itself is just a point on that meridian. Similarly, Mecca itself is just a point on the proposed meridian, equal to all other points directly north and south of it.

The proposal was based on the idea that 'Mecca is aligned with magnetic north'. Since the discussion is of which meridian to choose, the longitude of the meridian that magnetic north happens to be on is the only line relevant to this page.

Imagine a line of zero magnetic declination happened to go through the Kaaba itself and has stayed there for a thousand years. There would be other points on that same line of zero declination that would be on other longitudes. (Unless the zero declination line happened to be straight and pointed north/south. That would be a good choice for a natural prime meridian.) --91.85.138.109 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as the line of zero magnetic declination is not a straight line (i.e follows a particular meridian) why would one point on this line (Mecca at some past/future epoch) be more relevant than any other point on the same line. AstroLynx (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)