Via Astropixie comes this item of win:
But it doesn’t say how I can get one!
And how would 1984 open? “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking 9 + root(9) + 9/9.” Not quite the same ring to it.
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. 
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- Will Our Universe Collide With a Neighboring One?
- Visual Science: Polishing a Cosmic Spyglass
- Visual Science: NASA Unveils Its New Rocket
- Is Jupiter's Bizarre Moon Our Best Hope for Finding Extraterrestrial Life?
- Reviews: Clashes With Aliens, America vs. Science, and Really Horrible Sci-Fi: The Best in Science Culture
- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
January 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Woah! Schweet! Definitely want too!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Find it at http://www.cafepress.com/triplenine.2445706
January 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Oh! This is TOO FRELLING KEWL!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hey! The clock says it’s time for 9 beers!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Feh. It isn’t a sqrt(9) * 9 – sqrt(9) hour clock. Who needs it?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Do I want one?
Nein!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Actually – maybe I do want one — I love unusual clocks. But the joke didn’t work the other way…
January 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I would have phrased the joke something like…
“Can I live without one?
Nein!”
January 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You need to express 13 using only three ‘9’s. Can it be done?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
that is so GEEK!
I want it! (what’s the triple nine society?)
January 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
13 = 9 + sqrt(9) + .9 bar
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
http://www.triplenine.org/
Mensa +1
January 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
D’oh! Oh course. I gotta get that.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think I’ve confused my coworkers enough with my binary clocks.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I just need to figure out how to replicate the cool design in the center. Then it’s not too hard to print out a clock face and replace an old one.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
There’s a glare… does 1 o’clock say (9/9) to the 9th power?
And does anyone know how to prove .9 bar is equal to 1?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Why do analog clocks even have numbers? Are they afraid people will forget how to tell time on them?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Chris R. – but if you don’t have numbers on an analog clock, how will you know when you’ve hung it upside down?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
@MarshallDog
(’ = bar)
x=.9′
10x – x = 9.9′ – 0.9′ = 9
=> x=1
OR
1/3 = .3′
3 * .3′ = 3 * 1/3 = 1
but 3 * .3′ = 0.9′
=> 0.9′ = 1
January 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@Chris R
- I guess you don’t have have young children to try to teach to tell the time, then!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
This clock gets a failing grade. It fails to reduce the expressions to the simplest possible terms.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It fails to reduce the expressions to the simplest possible terms.
Lawyers need clocks too.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
> Why do analog clocks even have numbers? Are they afraid people will forget how to tell time on them?
There are 12-hour analog clocks, 24-hour analog clocks, probably various other X-hour analog clocks for specific purposes, so on and so forth…
January 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
OK, OK, I’m entranced by the none-ness of the thing, but ….
… why 9?
They could have used any other single-digit integer (though “1″ would have been pretty pointless).
January 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
OK, OK, I’m entranced by the none-ness of thing, but ….
… why 9?
They could have used any other single-digit integer (though “1″ would have been pretty pointless).
January 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
pfft… it’s not even a 24 hour clock.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I like the inner design, it would be better without all the 9 crap…
January 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Doesn’t have to be nine. I just worked out a whole clock using a triple 3.
8 was pretty trippy. Any other numbers?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Oh, that’s slick. I want one.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
is there any particular significance to the symbol in the center. Reminds of something from the TV series Threshold a couple of years ago.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Suggested Remaining Hours for a 24 Hour Clock:
9+9 – 9!/9
9 + 9!/9
9! / sqrt(9) OR 9 + sqrt(9)!
9! / sqrt(9) + 9/9 OR 9 + sqrt(9)! + 9/9
9+9 – 9/9
9+9
9+9 + 9/9
( 9 – sqrt(9) )! – 9/9
( 9 – sqrt(9) )!
( 9 – sqrt(9) )! + 9/9
9! / sqrt(9) + 9
January 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
@Tim G
It’s a triple-nine clock. You have to use exactly three nines in the expressions.
13=9+sqrt(9)+.9bar
14=9+sqrt(9)!-.9bar
15=9+9-sqrt(9)
16=9+sqrt(9)!+.9bar
17=9+9-.9bar
18=9/sqrt(9)*sqrt(9)!
19=9+9+.9bar
20=?
21=9+9+sqrt(9)
22=?
23=?
0=9(9-9)
BTW, 9!=9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1=362880
I couldn’t find solutions for 20, 22, and 23 using three 9’s. I’m sure someone here is smart enough with logic to prove if there are no solutions for them.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Has anyone worked out the numbers 1-12 using three sixes?
If so, I’d like to see it.
Thanks,
January 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
ZZMike says: “OK, OK, I’m entranced by the nine-ness of thing, but ….
… why 9? They could have used any other single-digit integer (though “1? would have been pretty pointless).”
It’s a reference to the “triple 9 society”, a sort of super-Mensa group where your IQ has to be at or above 99.9% of the general population (roughly 134).
- Jack
January 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
1 = ((6-6)*6)!
2 = (6+6)/6
3 =
4 =
5 = 6-(6/6)
6 = 6-(6-6)
7 = 6+(6/6)
8 =
9 =
10 =
11 = 66/6
12 = 6+(sqrt(6) * sqrt(6))
January 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
alfaniner wrote:
> Do I want one?
>
> Nein!
Do I want one?
Nein. I want nine! (But not 9!)
January 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Oops! I just realized that I was thinking of triangular numbers when I was using the factorial (!) symbol.
Substitute Tn for n!.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
That’s the miracle of analog devices. You needn’t know the delineations that the hands are passing, you only need to know their relative positions on the dial. That, plus knowing whether it is day or night, tells you the time at a glance.
That’s why analog (needle) gauges are still predominant in race cars. They are in airplanes too. Even those with glass cockpits display critical indicators such as artificial horizon and rate of climb as digitally simulated analog instruments. They are simply more intuitive and can be understood at a glance even under demanding circumstances.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
1 = F((6+6)/6)
2 = sqrt(F(6+6))/6
3 = F(6+6 – F(6))
4 = 6+6-F(6)
5 = F(6-(6/6))
6 = F(6) – F(6/6)
7 = F(6) – F(6/6)
8 = F(6) + (6-6)
9 = F(6) + (6/6)
10 = F(6) + F(6) – 6
11 = F(6) + (F(F(6)) mod 6)
12 = F(6+6)
13 = F(6+(6/6))
I started trying to finish Evolving Squid’s solution, but things rapidly multiplied out of control… 11 gave me serious paws for thought.
Ronan
January 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Oops. Some of those got away…
6 = sqrt(F(6+6))-6
12 = F(6*6/6)
Ronan
January 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
even though the answers to the equasions are all ready known, how most of those answers pan out I dont know
all i can say when i see that language called math is WHAT THE?!?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Great fun, but seriously, people who own these should not be walking around unsupervised.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:13 am
20 = floor(sqrt(sqrt(factorial(9))))-sqrt(9)-.9bar
23 = floor(sqrt(sqrt(factorial(9)))) – 9/9
January 5th, 2008 at 5:19 am
22 = floor(sqrt(sqrt(gamma(9)))) + 9 – .9bar
I don’t think “gamma” and “floor” are cheating if “bar” and “factorial” are allowed
January 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Fergus already pointed this out on how 6.999 repeating does equal 7 but the equation here was a little easier for me to understand, so:
n=0.9 repeating
10n=9.9 repeating
10n-n=9
9n=9
n=1
I’ve heard of this, but never seen the proof for it…interesting
January 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
@Luke:
Write 1/3 as a decimal.
Multiply by 3.
Discuss.
Ronan
January 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
[...] A clock with only nines (via Bad Astronomy) [...]
January 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
1984 was a very well written book. George Orwell is amazing. Also what is that clock going by it make no sense.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Co-worker had one. Loved it. Bought one for youngest LurchGS replacement’s birthday, and sent one to LurchGS’ immediate paternal progenitor for the end-of-year celebration.
Sadly, overlooked ordering one for self. Oh well, I can always stop in Youngest’s room for a time check
January 6th, 2008 at 1:11 am
[...] online community. The best part is … it’s all 100% free! Check them out here: Join Hey Nielsen! Want: Part III saved by 1 others jetsetshow bookmarked on 01/06/08 | [...]
January 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I clicked though to the comments on this just to see if there might be a Holy War on the “0.999…. = 1″ issue. I’m happy to see that there isn’t. Maybe because the readership here understands the implication of mathematical proof better than other places on the Internet.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I want this clock so when you get the information you better tell me!
January 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
My sister has a backwards clock. The hands run in reverse direction and I think all the figures are mirror images. Besides a good gimmick, it would suit in a traditional barber’s shop.
I didn’t quite catch in a [30 Rock] episode where the girls were discussing these two guys they might date, one of the guys was shown explaining laboriously he has a watch he is real proud of, that shows the time in pie slices, I think he -may- have meant analogue style… don’t do it, lady!
January 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Ronan,
Thanks for the input, but I am confused by F(6) which seems to equal 8. Why is that?
Thanks
January 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
What is the meaning of a time of day that is plus or minus 3:00 o’clock, or any of the other times that involve a square root. For example, the 4:00 spot could also be -2:00, since -3+1=-2.
Joe
January 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Awesome.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:51 am
A better representation of the number 7 using three nines is: 9/.9 – sqrt(9) = 7 exactly. This avoids any need for discussion about whether .9 recurring is or is not equivalent to 1 (at least in reference to the “3 nines clock”)
April 9th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Here is a gadget that uses this clock:
http://scripts.tropicalpcsolutions.com/html/gadgets/9clock.html
September 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
[...] 9 clock Via Astropixie and Bad Astronomy and Triple Nine [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
9
9
obscured by reflected light glare
FAIL!
BAD geek, BAD geek!
No cheeto for you!
May 4th, 2009 at 4:24 am
[...] (images via 1, 2, 3, 4) [...]
May 7th, 2009 at 3:58 am
[...] (images via 1, 2, 3, 4) [...]