10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz search band : Why not search here... 

log in 
Message boards : SETI@home Science : 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz search band : Why not search here...
Author  Message 

10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz search band : Why not search here...  
ID: 1067551 ·  
I do wonder what happend to southern hemisphere search using parks telescope.  
ID: 1067594 ·  
Einstein@home is using it for its binary pulsar search.  
ID: 1067639 ·  
Another fact, though, about Xband (10GHZ) is that water vapor absorbs this frequency band very well. That is why there is so much xband stuff around since the Air Force designed their RADAR at this frequency only to find this out. Looking above the atmosphereout in space might be a good idea but water vapor from an originating site would tend to attenuate the signal strength escaping into space as well.  
ID: 1067681 ·  
SETI focus on radio signals, and lasers for the detection of alien interstaler communication; however, can such things as gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet, infrared, be used also as carriers for sending information. Could gravity lensing be used on SETI search, any thoughts the above  
ID: 1067759 ·  
10 GHz is close to Pi x e Even ignoring a 15% error in the mathematical constants, which is ludicrous, you have to assume ETs to be using hertz and decimal notation. IMO the former is extremely unlikely—it would be an astonishing coincidence for their unit of time to be the same as ours—and the latter has no basis but anthropocentrism. ____________  
ID: 1067915 ·  
what I dont get is that we assume the RT's are using base 10 calculations what if they have 8 fingers or 12 they'd probably not get into the same decimal system. We are culture blind to this and we make assumptions that are possibly and probably incorrect  
ID: 1067970 ·  
pi is a ratio which we could translate to base 10. The Babyloanians used base 60 probably since it divides by so many numbers. Therefore wouldn't the hydrogen Lyman line have the same number of cycles as ours (don't confuse numerals with numbers) and this number times pi would be the same number as ours as would just the Lyman frequency as well.  
ID: 1068033 ·  
Yes, any fundamental physical property could be the basis for a ‘universal code’ of some kind, as long as no purely conventional measures or notations are introduced to disguise the ‘symbols’. The more complex a pattern is, the harder it becomes to distinguish from a chaotic background.  
ID: 1068107 ·  
10 GHz is close to Pi x e Forgive my lack of science education. What does the "e" stand for? If the "e" is energy, energy of what? John. ____________  
ID: 1069808 ·  
If I remember from my youthful studies, it is the basis of natural logarithms.  
ID: 1069830 ·  
Yes: Euler’s number is a fundamental & important mathematical constant, the base of the exponential function exp(x), of which the natural logarithm function ln(x) is the inverse. My favourite definition for e—just one of several—is that it’s the limit, as n tends to infinity, of (1 + 1/n) raised to the nth power. (Sorry for the verbosity: BBCode seems to lack tags for sub and superscripts.) It’s a transcendental number, like π; its first few digits are 2.718281828459. This constant appears frequently in calculus, laws of growth & decay, and the hyperbolic trigonometric functions sinh(x), cosh(x), tanh(x), &c.  
ID: 1069840 ·  
Yes: Euler’s number is a fundamental & important mathematical constant, the base of the exponential function exp(x), of which the natural logarithm function ln(x) is the inverse. My favourite definition for e—just one of several—is that it’s the limit, as n tends to infinity, of (1 + 1/n) raised to the nth power. (Sorry for the verbosity: BBCode seems to lack tags for sub and superscripts.) It’s a transcendental number, like π; its first few digits are 2.718281828459. This constant appears frequently in calculus, laws of growth & decay, and the hyperbolic trigonometric functions sinh(x), cosh(x), tanh(x), &c. Thanks Odysseus and Tullio! Now everything is much clearer! Its so clear, its like muddy water. So i guess if the aliens think anything like me, they won't know what it is either! Yes, if i was an alien wanting to broadcast to the whole universe, i would pick a random complex mathematical constant, that might not be constant, then multiply that by Pi to complicate it further, then divide it by the Nth term given by X(3.14n(n x n^6)+xx^2). Yep, then everyone will know i'm here! Its obvious really ....LOL I'm kinda glad SETI@home just stick to the hydrogen line, nice and simple, even if it never succeeds! John. ____________  
ID: 1070040 ·  
Yes, if i was an alien wanting to broadcast to the whole universe, i would pick a random complex mathematical constant, that might not be constant, then multiply that by Pi to complicate it further, then divide it by the Nth term given by X(3.14n(n x n^6)+xx^2). I agree entirely; the KISS Principle should apply … unless (as in some SF plots) we imagine the ETs to be setting a puzzle, not being interested in communicating with anyone who can’t solve it …  
ID: 1070094 ·  
In "Turandot" by Giacomo Puccini the Princess will marry the one who solves a puzzle. But if anyone tries and does not succeed he will be put to death. Are we trying to solve a puzzle?  
ID: 1070133 ·  
in the bandwidth auctions, SETI or anything related won't beat TMobile, and this is the downfall of capitalism. if we continue on this current path, we will never abandon fossil fuels, develop economic nuclear fusion power or prosper as an intelligent species.  
ID: 1074472 ·  
We don't need fusion which requires hundreds of millions of degrees. Fission is just fine. We should be able to generate Plutonium in a breeder reactor and there is plenty of uranium around for which we can enrich to U235 (about only 3% for reactors from .7% occurring naturally.)  
ID: 1074504 ·  
Superphenix has been shutdown, as all breeders. Only Japan is still planning a breeder, against much opposition.  
ID: 1074590 ·  
We don't need fusion which requires hundreds of millions of degrees. However, fusion is even more efficient than fission and so promises to offer yet cheaper power. However, as is often the case with big new technology, development is going to be an expensive (ad)venture. Look up ITER. Fission is just fine. We should be able to generate Plutonium in a breeder reactor and there is plenty of uranium around for which we can enrich to U235 (about only 3% for reactors from .7% occurring naturally.) Hopefully, the latest generation of fission reactor design will prove to be much better than the early rushed military designs. Interestingly, China is looking to use thorium as a fission material for their fission reactors. Lets hope that there is not a repeat of the disastrous circumstances that lead up to Chernobyl. Newer designs should be made to be inherently safe... Aside and back ontopic: An inherent assumption to the search we're making with SETI is that whatever ET deliberately wants to be found. Broadcasting a beacon of the type that we can detect is very expensive in energy. Would we pay to broadcast a continuous beacon for ET to find us? Perhaps a more likely alternative would be to engineer a transmitter on some moon in a high planetary (or star) magnetic field to convert the orbital velocity via interaction with the magnetic field into a naturally high power transmission... That is, create a tuned artificial pulsar! Could we do that for our moon passing through the earth's solar tail?... Keep searchin! Martin ____________ See new freedom: Mageia5 See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)  
ID: 1074803 ·  
The issue with fission is its high content of nuclear waste,while fusion does not present that problem at all, and fusion reactors would be an ideal propulsion engine for space exploration. A human fligh to Mars would take months on craft that would use fusion propultion, and a probe on fusion propulsion would reach the Alpha Centauri system in a human lifetime; while fission does not offer that.  
ID: 1074891 ·  
Message boards : SETI@home Science : 10.0 GHz to 10.5 GHz search band : Why not search here...
Copyright © 2016 University of California 