Why no alien radio signals?

Many of have heard of the Fermi paradox: on plausible assumptions, the universe should be teeming with intelligent life, so where are they all? The folks behind SETI have responded by going out and looking for it by scanning radio signals, but so far the search has turned up nothing, leading Peter Schenkel to argue in Skeptical Inquirer that SETI needs a skeptical reassessment.

Robin Hanson has taken this conclusion and reasoned that this implies the existence of a “Great Filter” that’s been leading to far fewer alien species than we’d otherwise expect… or perhaps, he suggests, the other species have merely been short lived. If so, we should worry that whatever the Great Filter is, it could one day spell the end of human civilization too.

But for another perspective, I just got done reading a very interesting article by Randall Munroe of xkcd fame, arguing that more efficient communications technologies have made human civilization less visible over time:

You can work through the physics of interstellar radio attenuation, but the problem is captured pretty well by considering the economics of the situation: If your TV signals are getting to another star, you’re losing money. Powering a transmitter is expensive, and creatures on other stars aren’t buying the products in the TV commercials that pay your electricity bill.

The full picture is more complicated, but the bottom line is that as our technology has advanced, less of our radio traffic has been leaking out into space. We’re closing down the giant transmitting antennas and switching to cable and fiber and tightly-focused cell-tower networks.

While our TV signals may have been detectable—with great effort—for a while, that window is closing. In the late 20th century, when we were using TV and radio to scream into the void at the top of our lungs, the signal probably faded to undetectability after a few light-years. The potentially habitable exoplanets we’ve spotted so far are dozens of light-years away, so the odds are they aren’t currently repeating our catchphrases.

But TV and radio transmissions still weren’t Earth’s most powerful radio signal. They were outshone by the beams from early-warning radar.

Early-warning radar, a product of the Cold War, consisted of a bunch of ground and airborne stations scattered around the Arctic. These stations swept the atmosphere with powerful radar beams 24/7, often bouncing them off the ionosphere, and people obsessively monitored the echos for any hints of enemy movement. (I wasn’t alive during most of this period, but from what I hear, the mood was a little tense.)

These radar transmissions leaked into space, and could probably be picked up by nearby exoplanets if they happened to be listening when the beam swept over their part of the sky. But the same march of technological progress that made the TV broadcast towers obsolete has had the same effect on early-warning radar. Today’s systems—where they exist at all—are much quieter, and may eventually be replaced completely by new technology.

The implications for why we have yet to detect any alien civilizations are obvious: maybe they’re out there, but they’ve long since adopted technologies that make themselves invisible to our current means of detecting them.

I have no idea if that’s really right, though. I’m entirely a casual observer of this debate, and what I know of it is mostly what I’ve acquired while trying to learn about other things. So, your thoughts?

  • Michael W Busch

    My first thought is that Randall has somewhat underestimated the detectability of radio leakage. Current Earth-based radio telescopes are capable of detecting (although not interpreting) current Earth-based radio leakage out to a minimum of ~15 lightyears. That admittedly only covers a small number of stars, but for certain definitions of “habitable” there is a ~20% chance of the nearest habitable exoplanet being within that distance (ref. http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ…767…95D and correcting for some of those planets being a bit too big to be considered habitable). In some directions, the detectable distance is far higher, as Randall correctly noted. What he missed is that both military and deep-space radars are still very active. The military nearly-continuously monitors satellites and orbital debris in Earth orbit with the same sort of equipment that would be used to track incoming ICBMs (which causes a bit of a problem for transient-radio-source astronomy projects – there’s foreground confusion of satellites and orbital debris flashing as they’re painted by the radars. They can be reliably recognized and rejected, albeit with some work).

    My second thought is that Randall here is addressing mainly the detectability of the current radio leakage from the Earth. Deliberate transmissions from Earth can be made orders of magnitude more detectable than the leakage radiation is right now at significant but not incredibly high cost, and there are various designs for beacons that could run for up to 1000 years without maintenance to maximize the probability of a watcher noticing the signal.

    The next question is this: Will we decide, or will any aliens have decided, to build a sufficiently-bright beacon to communicate with other intelligent species?

    Since the nearest intelligent aliens are likely to be hundreds of lightyears away rather than actually on the nearest potentially-habitable exoplanet, you should think of any such beacons as being more like time capsules.

    For a reference, I indulge in self-promotion: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5540

  • Michael W Busch

    Also, please don’t use that picture. Even though it shows off the Very Large Array to good advantage, and is flattering to both Jill Tarter (the real-life inspiration for the character of Arroway) and to Jodie Foster. No radio astronomer has done radio astronomy like that for a very long time (arguably, since before there were radio astronomers). Instead, you want something like this: https://mitr.drao.nrc.ca/widar/WIDAR_EVLA_PublicPoster_English_Front_LoRes_12x18_Aug31-05.jpg & https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/docs/manuals/obsguide/modes/line/widar .

  • Mike Blyth

    I’m certainly no expert, but my understanding is that there is another view that sees the probability of the emergence of life as so remote as to make it virtually certain that we are alone in our section of the universe. For example, biologist Eugene Koonin (The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution) comes up with a probability of something less than 10e-50 of life originating in a given universe, and thus leans on the multiverse theory as a way to explain why we’re here. Of course, tomorrow we might find some much more probable route to the origin of life, and some researchers must already see it as more probable, but at any rate it’s still a viable explanation for our absence of detecting extraterrestrial life.

    • Michael W Busch

      There are a number of serious problems with Koonin’s calculation – he takes a lot of liberties with cosmology and planetary science to arrive at that probability assessment. That’s not to say that life may not be rare in the universe, but only that his numbers are not justified by many orders of magnitude.

      Here’s what we do know:

      1. The chemistry of the universe is variable, but many places have close to the same mixture of elements that the solar system does.

      2. There are many planets – more than there are stars – and a significant fraction of those planets are potentially habitable. The nearest such planet is probably at most a couple tens of lightyears away (I mentioned this earlier).

      3. There are many ways to synthesize complex organic compounds from simple precursors, although details of how that happened on Earth are argued. Once a chemical system can effective catalyze its own production, it spreads throughout the environment and selection and competition begin acting. We then have life.

      4. In at least one case, life evolved what we are pleased to call intelligence. Depending on how you define intelligence, it may have independently evolved once or several times on Earth. We do not yet have any constraints on the rate at which different biospheres produce intelligences.

      (1) and (2) are tightly constrained by observation (stellar chemistry and current exoplanet work, respectively). (3) is based on terrestrial chemistry and planetary science. In order to discover or set interesting limits on the rarity of extraterrestrial life, we will need new hardware – such as the proposed New Worlds Observer – to look for large chemical disequilibria in the atmospheres of exoplanets. For (4), we won’t be able to constrain that rate until we have other biospheres to examine.

      • hf

        Life on Earth suffered several major die-offs, and the different results give us some small evidence of how other biospheres might develop (hat-tip: PZ Myers). We don’t see much intelligence.

        Also, people tell me that all multicellular life on Earth benefits from the freak merger with mitochondria. Such an accident could provide a bottleneck for the possible histories of intelligence.

        • Michael W Busch

          @First: It is true that there have been many mass extinctions. But since the end of the late heavy bombardment 3.8 billion years ago, there has never been a time when all life went extinct (we can’t say if there was life before that, but whatever there was wasn’t abundant). Re. intelligence: as I said, it depends on what you call intelligence. PZ likes to cite the squid as a separate evolution of intelligence from the chordates; you could argue that intelligence appears three separate times (cephalopods, birds, mammals); or you could be anthropocentric and say it only evolved once.

          @Second: that is true, if we presuppose that mitochondria are necessary for multicellular life. This may not have been true even on Earth (aren’t there some fungal strains that don’t have any?); and is most likely not applicable to life on other planets. Extraterrestrial life will probably have cells – you need to keep the biochemistry separate from the environment – but the particular set of functions performed by mitochondria could be performed by different systems or not needed at all (e.g. if you don’t used ATP, you don’t need to synthesize it).

          And my point here was that while intelligent life may be rare in the universe, we do not yet have the information necessary to assess that number but know how to go about getting that information.

  • Lisa Manguso

    We’ve only seriously been trying to pick up signals for 40 years or so. We’ve only been transmitting TV and radio for little longer, relatively speaking. Now, remember, all our broadcasts were at power levels appropriate to communication on Earth, not across the galaxy. The strength of the signal drops of as 1/r^2 so a transmission meant to cover a 100 mi^2 area would be how strong at 40 LY away? We don’t monitor the same frequencies we use to broadcast, either. So, somebody picking up our signals might try to contact us on the same frequencies… nobody’s even listening. And that signal is going to be incredibly weak at any real distance. We decided it made sense to monitor certain frequencies and expect the rest of the galaxy to follow our logic and broadcast on those frequencies… which we don’t broadcast. Our SETI is interesting, but maybe only as an exercise in futility.

    We would need satellites above the atmosphere monitoring a very wide range of frequencies, including those we use for our own communications to even begin to claim we’ve made a serious search.

    • Michael W Busch

      We’ve only seriously been trying to pick up signals for 40 years or so.

      Depends on what you count as “serious”. It’s been 53 years since Frank Drake did his first projects; although only 40 since Ben Zuckerman and Pat Palmer (who occupies the office next to mine when he visits from Chicago) did the first extensive survey of nearby stars for any bright radio beacons (alas, there are none so bright so nearby).

      The strength of the signal drops of as 1/r^2 so a transmission meant to cover a 100 mi^2 area would be how strong at 40 LY away?

      Once again, I indulge in self-promotion: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5540

      We decided it made sense to monitor certain frequencies and expect the rest of the galaxy to follow our logic and broadcast on those frequencies… which we don’t broadcast.

      Incorrect. SETI searches have covered just about every frequency, albeit at widely different sensitivity limits. That is now changing for frequencies below a few gigahertz, because we can record the entire spectrum at once. RFI interference from human transmissions is a serious problem, but it’s also a serious problem for normal radio astronomy and we have become very adept at identifying and rejecting it.

      We would need satellites above the atmosphere monitoring a very wide range of frequencies, including those we use for our own communications to even begin to claim we’ve made a serious search.

      The real problem for SETI is not being on the ground. The wavelengths too long to get through the atmosphere get scattered by the interstellar medium and so aren’t preserved well over interstellar distances; wavelengths too short to get through have more background confusion to compete with. There are two main limitations: how much of the sky you can can sample at any one time, and the data processing requirements. These are closely related.

      I mentioned the WIDAR system, which we have just finished installing at the Very Large Array. For certain specific tasks, it is one of the fastest computers in the world. It can handle the processing requirements for the VLA’s huge frequency coverage and high frequency resolution. But the VLA can cover only ~1/100,000 of the sky at any given moment (at ~1 GHz frequencies). That could be increased by a factor of 10-100, but only at the expense of having 10-100 times as many receivers and 10-100 times as large a data-processing back-end.

      The SETI Institute’s Allen Telescope Array covers more of the sky than the VLA, but does not have the same resolution or sensitivity. The proposed Square Kilometer Array would have far better sensitivity, resolution, and sky coverage, but the data processing requirements for it are so high that the designers have to assume Moore’s Law continues for another few generations for the computers to be within budget.

  • b33bl3br0x

    Maybe the Aliens all communicate telepathically instantaneously and so have not built listening devices and have no need of building transmitting devices. Maybe they’re all wondering why we’re not thinking at them.

    • Michael W Busch

      Completely missing the joke:

      Telepathy cannot be instantaneous. Like everything else, it’s limited to the speed of light. And, given aliens built around chemical reactions, it would be electromagnetic (e.g. they’d have radios in their heads). That would be just the same as an artificial transmitter, as long as the wavelengths can be matched up.

      • JohnH2

        Michael,

        They could be using Neutrinos; Even without going faster then the speed of light investment houses are interested in Neutrinos as they have the potential to be quicker than using fiber optics. That right now such communication would be impractical does not mean that other civilizations may not be using such a method of communication. I suppose it is even possible that other forms of life may use neutrino communication as the primary means of communication; I have a lack of imagination as to how that would evolve but that does not rule it out as a possibility.

        This is also assuming that we have a complete and correct understanding of physics, which based on recent articles I have read recently is not the view of physicists.

        • Michael W Busch

          Neutrinos don’t interact well with normal matter and so no lifeforms based on normal matter would use neutrino communication by preference. No one on Earth is seriously considering using them as a significant method of communication, because the efficiency of detection is far less than one part per trillion – and you can only produce neutrinos in nuclear reactions anyway. Unless you assume life on a neutron star, neutrino communication is not a good choice for anyone unless you have some reason to communicate data very slowly through a very massive object. This is the best that can be done with such technology: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847 .

          And no, we don’t have a complete understanding of physics. But all of the laws of physics are the same everywhere, so aliens have the same limitations we have. For example, anything going faster-than-light is right out.

          • JohnH2

            “efficiency of detection is far less than one part per trillion”

            Using current means of detection, which doesn’t mean that some future means of detection will not at some point be discovered.

            “unless you have some reason to communicate data very slowly through a very massive object.”

            Like stock prices from New York to Hong Kong or Tokyo allowing for trades to posted prior to the registration of price changes transmitted via Fiber Optic cable. If it had turned out that Neutrinos really did travel faster then light then I am sure by now Goldman Sachs (or someone similar) would be investing in such communication schemes.

          • Michael W Busch

            Using current means of detection, which doesn’t mean that some future means of detection will not at some point be discovered.

            Wrong. Neutrino interaction cross-sections with normal matter are set by fundamental physics and are not subject to alteration, and nearly every neutrino hit in the detectors is detected by current systems. The limit is the weak neutrino-baryon and neutrino-lepton interactions, not the subsequent electromagnetic interactions. The only way to increase interaction cross-sections by many orders of magnitude is to run up the density of the material by many orders of magnitude (hence ‘life on a neutron star’).

            Like stock prices from New York to Hong Kong or Tokyo allowing for trades to posted prior to the registration of price changes transmitted via Fiber Optic cable

            Maximum possible time advantage over fiber: <0.1 s.

            Bandwidth with current neutrino links:

            ~0.1 bits per second at 1 km distance

            100 bits.

            Time to transmit data packet 10,000 km: >10^9 s.

            You have a deficient of a factor of at least 10 billion. And this is why neutrino communication is not favorable for anything except very specific niche applications.

            Re. your last: neutrinos don’t travel faster than light. The OPERA team knew that. They wanted the community’s help in figuring out what was wrong with their equipment. And then things got misinterpreted.

          • JohnH2

            Michael:

            Is it possible to increase the bandwidth in any theoretical way that you can think of?

            Given that you provide the example of increasing the density of the material used then I will assume that the answer is in the affirmative. Therefore a current limit of 10^-7 bits per second doesn’t mean that we are eternally limited to 10^-7 bps.

            With the right protocols it would be possible to have a profitable trade with a singular bit that arrives prior to fiber, meaning that a packet of 100 bits is a very faulty assumption.

            I did say “If”, as I am aware that they don’t.

          • Michael W Busch

            Is it possible to increase the bandwidth in any theoretical way that you can think of?

            Three ways:

            1. Make your detector out of neutronium or electron-degenerate matter. Again, that doesn’t work unless you’re on a neutron star or a white dwarf, with enough gravity to make the degenerate material stable.

            2. Increase the neutrino production by orders of magnitude.

            3. Increase the size of the neutrino detector by orders of magnitude.

            Those last two are possible, but incredibly expensive – the neutrino link described in the paper used ~$100 million of hardware, and there are not significant returns to scale on the cost (the detector in this case was 1000 tons of steel and plastic). Sending 1 bit rather than 100 does not change the conclusion significantly, since there are so many orders of magnitude of deficit here. Cost comparison: dedicated over-land fiber is 10^14 bits per second over 10,000 km for ~$100 million, beating neutrino links by 10^20 or more in cost-per-bandwidth. Earth-orbit satellite links are ~10^9 bits per second at ~10,000 km for ~$10 million, more expensive than fiber but able to get to more places and still ~10^16 times better than neutrino links.

          • JohnH2

            Spread Networks spent upwards of 300 million dollars in order to cut 3 milliseconds off the data transfer time between New York and Chicago. More has been spent putting new lines between New York and London (and many more such efforts are under-way). If it were considered technically feasible then the trading houses would bore directly from New York to Chicago. Three new routes are being laid between London and Tokyo through the Arctic, each for a cost of nearly 1 Billion dollars (to shave ~70 ms in latency).

            Obviously, that is for many orders of magnitude more bits then what could be gotten via neutrinos, but the point remains. Trading houses are willing to spend vast amounts of money for the smallest advantage in getting data first. I will not be surprised when in in a decade or, perhaps, two a neutrino link is used by a trading company.

          • Michael W Busch

            I will not be surprised when in a decade or, perhaps, two a neutrino link is used by a trading company.

            That will not happen. Do the math: to get to 10 bps with a 10,000 km neutrino link (which is what you need to get any advantage over fiber), you’d need to spend $100 million * 10^8 => more money than anyone has, and a detector that occupied several cubic miles. To say nothing of the data-processing requirements for read-out, which would take more time than the 100 ms of travel time you’d save (fiber gets read out directly onto a board, the neutrino detector needs to process all incoming events and reject everything that isn’t a message neutrino – data processing can keep up with collection, but that extra delay isn’t negligible).

          • JohnH2

            And people will never have personal computers because millions were spent on the first computers.

          • Michael W Busch

            You are making a false analogy. The speed of light and the physical properties of neutrinos are invariant, while our skill at making microcircuits is variable.

          • JohnH2

            Our skill at making detectors (and the cost of making detectors) and transmitters is variable.

          • Michael W Busch

            For neutrinos our skill is already nearly at the physical limits. As I said above, the limit on detection is the cross-section for neutrino interactions with normal matter. The only way around that is to make a bigger detector (which is why current neutrino detectors are thousands of tons and larger, as compared to the few hundred tons of the first neutrino projects). The limit on neutrino production is the number of particles pushed through the particle accelerator, which is proportional to the power consumption of the accelerator. And the limit on how tightly-focused a neutrino beam can be is set by the energy of the neutrinos. Higher-energy neutrinos can be focused more tightly, but take more power to produce, so it ends up being a wash.

            And this is what I meant when I said there weren’t returns-to-scale.

          • JohnH2

            I am obviously not qualified to continue the discussion. I did find an article that suggests that current technology could relatively inexpensively allow for such trading schemes currently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2012/04/30/neutrinos-to-give-high-frequency-traders-the-millisecond-edge/

          • Michael W Busch

            The article does not suggest that. It merely uncritically reports a possibility and an outrageously low cost estimate, without getting into any of the relevant physical limits. On the one hand, I would not expect Forbes’ staff to know the physics. On the other hand, it’s not too hard to do a little basic research and get a couple of quick expert opinions.

          • JohnH2

            There are two comments that are reportedly from the physicist involved that provide a few more details, both by the author so they are easy to find.

          • Michael W Busch

            Yes, I saw them. But, as I said, the article is not properly critical of Learned’s idea or of his cost estimate.

          • b33bl3br0x

            You guys missed completely that I was making an “Ender’s Game” reference.

          • Michael W Busch

            As I said, I deliberately missed the joke. Perhaps that was a mistake.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            The speed of light … are invariant…

            You must have used the Cliff Notes version of a physics text. The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I note a certain resemblance to religious apologism. SETI believers must explain how their hypothesis still could be true despite the available evidence, none of which supports it.

    • Michael W Busch

      There is not a resemblance. Allow me to illustrate:

      Religious apologetics:

      “Something exists for which there is no evidence, and which violates all physical laws, and it doesn’t matter that there is no possible way to show that the thing exists or not.”

      SETI:

      “Extraterrestrial life may exist, because all of the elements and many of the conditions necessary for life to appear on Earth are common throughout the universe and the appearance of life and intelligence do not require violating any of the laws of physics [reference the entirety of astronomy, geology, and biology]. We therefore will design and perform tests to see if extraterrestrial life and intelligence exist. If we find ET, great! If we do not find anything, then we set steadily tighter bounds on what ET can possibly exist.”

      See the difference?

      despite the available evidence, none of which supports it.

      Except for cosmochemistry, geochemistry, biochemistry, planetary science, and astrophysics – all of which say that extraterrestrial life is plausible and could possibly appear in many locations, even though none has yet been found.

  • Jethro

    Maybe the aliens live underwater and their signals don’t pentrate far above the surface of their oceans. Maybe they don’t use radio but rather communicate through smell, or send ultrasonic vibrations through the planet’s crust like elephants. Maybe their moon happened to block our signal at a crucial moment…
    space is gigantic, what are the chances we’d ever bump into each other?

  • eric

    I have no idea if that’s really right, though.

    Here’s another way to think about his point. We only have a sample size of one (ourselves), but evidence from that single sample indicates that very early estimates of the Drake equation’s L were massively overestimated. Initially, people assumed it would be thousands or millons of years – i.e., that a civilization would pump out EM signal as long as that civilization lasted. But our own civilization indicates that number will be more like 100 years – not because civilizations die out that fast, but because broadband EM is quickly replaced by things like optical fiber. If you plug 100 years for L into the Drake equation along with best estimates for other numbers, I believe you get down to a statistically small number of detectable aliens with a statistically large amount of uncertainty. That being the case, one can then point out that there is really nothing surprising about not detecting alien signals from (just to throw out some made up numbers) 5 +/- 50 detectable alien species.

  • Kim Paine

    The funny thing about most of the internet is that it is completely undetectable from space. Most human electronic communication, if it is detectable via RF, is now digitally encoded, highly directional and relatively low powered.

    Hypothetical aliens listening to us from afar may reasonably assume that the decline in detectable RF transmissions from our system is a result of a rapid decline in our brief and once noisy civilisation.

    Or perhaps all hypothetical alien civilisations only use crude omnidirectional broadcasts for a very brief period of their history and move to more efficient and directional higher frequency encoded RF communication making SETI’s job exponentially more difficult.

    Or maybe nobody up there like us.

  • MNb

    “So, your thoughts?”
    It’s all mere speculation. We don’t have the means to test hypotheses like these. Another suggestion: the assumptions Fermi refers to might be wrong. Or perhaps Relativity is the problem. If the nearest civilization with an advanced technology is say 4 million lightyears away their message send 2000 years ago still will arrive only almost 3,998 million years from now … (European notation).

  • James Sweet

    Too much here to unpack while I’m supposed to be working, but just a couple brief comments:

    1) Munroe’s point is accurate, but it is also not new. If our civilization is anywhere near typical, passive radio visibility of a technological civilization has a very short lifespan, and a shorter range than many people might guess. This doesn’t preclude Active SETI-type programs, but that still is taking a huge gamble that one civilization are pointing their transmitters in the right direction at the same time another is pointing their receivers in the right direction. It’s all a pretty huge long-shot.

    2) Space is fuckin HUGE, and we are in the galactic boonies.

    3) Toying with the Drake Equation and just general perceptions, I would guess we are probably not alone in the galaxy, though we just might be. I don’t think unicellular life is all that rare, but intelligent life just might be incredibly rare. Even still, I’m essentially certain we aren’t alone in the universe — that just seems incredibly unlikely.

    4) As a result of all the above, my belief is that we will almost certainly never make physical contact with intelligent beings from another solar system, and even radio contact is a distinct long-shot (and, given the transmission lag, even radio contact is unlikely to be more fruitful than “Hey, we’re here!” “Hey, we’re here too!” “So… you dig prime numbers?” “Yes! We love prime numbers!” “Alright, um… I think we’ve run out of things we can actually talk about given our incredibly limited shared vocabulary.”). It might happen someday, but… there could be dozens or even hundreds of intelligent civilizations RIGHT NOW in the Milky Way, and we still might never even make radio contact.

    5) Nevertheless, I support a modest financial expenditure on SETI and possibly even Active SETI type programs, just because the pay-off is so freakin’ huge. Even just the “You dig prime numbers?” conversation would have tremendous import, both scientifically and philosophically. It’s worth the roll of the dice, I think.

  • Norm Donnan

    Sad fact is God only created man and there is nobody out there,but it does make a good story.

  • Confuzer

    I came to the same conclusion while never hearing this idea. Energy will also become a factor, as no high evolved entity would spoil it into space. Althought you might think an advanced race will be curious, and would sent out some powerfull emissions of some kind hoping to find other life (or not, some might be afraid of haywire replicators). These emissions would then be with something we aren’t able to detect as of yet, otherwise we would have seen them. Are aliens space bending to allow for direct communication while ignoring the barbaric races growing up? Who knows.

    My theory is there must be alot of radio wave rings of 200 -> 500 year emissions. The chance of us detecting those will be very slim… depends totaly on the ammount of live and some luck ofcourse.

  • lou barreto

    Everyone Is Searching
    The Wrong Heaven – The Wrong Universe
    For Alien Life

    Written By Lou Barreto

    Will we discover alien life form in the cosmos above or some
    other universe? Will that alien life form be spiritual? Concerning the article
    on NBC News, “Mars vs. Europa: The article below is a response to the
    above question about alien life in our universe and NBC News article concerning
    Astrobiologist Robert Pappalardo and NASA’s research for Alien life in our heavenly universe-be it Mars, Europa, Uranus or the recently discovery of Kepler-62f planet in April of 2013.

    Astrobiologist Robert Papplard and NASA’s research team are searching our universe for alien life. Are they looking in the wrong place, the wrong heaven, the wrong universe? Yes, they are. There is life other than the planet Earth and it’s not Europa, Mars, Uranus, Jupiter, Kepler-62f or any part of heaven in our present universe. Life does exist, but it’s beyond our solar system, beyond our heaven and beyond our universe. Mankind cannot access this other universe that is beyond due to a lack of scientific technology. There is a third heaven, a third universe where Life exist, where there is an extra-terrestrial life that’s beyond our imagination. Yes, this extra-terrestrial life is located in the third heaven, the third universe. Yes, another universe.

    The New King James Bible speaks about the third heaven, the
    third universe that cannot be tap into by our scientific technology on earth.
    Even the government sponsor Seti program is searching the wrong universe for
    other extra-terrestrial life. The Apostle Paul speaks
    about the third heaven in his letter to the Corinth church (2 Corinthians,
    chapter 12 verse 2-7, New King James Bible).

    Paul said, “He is not sure how he was transported, in the body
    or out of the body, to the third heaven, but he was.” Paul call the third
    heaven, Paradise, which is the Kingdom Of God. Jesus Christ, when he was dying on the cross, responded to the thief on the cross who said to Jesus
    “Remember me when you come into your Kingdom, and Jesus said, “today
    you will be with me in Paradise,” Luke, Chapter 23, verse 41 43, New King
    James Bible.

    Yes, the simplicity of God’s message of Salvation to earth inhabitants, “Remember me” uttered by the thief. How simple can Salvation be. Call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will enter into Paradise, the third heaven. It’s that simple, call on the name of the Lord and you will be accepted like the thief on the cross. It’s the only way to tap into the third heaven without a space ship or scientific technology.

    Jesus was referring to Paradise as being the Kingdom of God,
    where His Father God resides, including the Family of God. Paradise is the
    third heaven, the third universe. There is where you will find life, extra-terrestrial
    beings, living beings who have the same genetic makeup as Jesus and God
    His father. Death, sickness and evil do not exist in the land of Paradise.
    There is peace, harmony and unity with all the inhabitants of Paradise, where
    Jesus and His Father God resides with the Family of God. Yes, life does exists
    in Paradise, the third heaven, the third universe. It’s the Kingdom of God and
    He reigns over its inhabitants, His beloved sons and daughters.

    Mankind cannot access that Third Heaven due to its lack of technology to penetrate the third heaven, the third universe. Many lay people and scientists on earth believe that there are parallel universes, but the New Testament Bible is the first to mention about other heavens, other Universes. The bible scripture revelations are always ahead of its time and the present knowledge of mankind is always catching up to past revelations of the bible. Amazing.

    In conclusion, Paradise is where life exists, where Christ exist. He is the truth, the light and the way. Paradise in the third heaven, the third universe just as the Apostle Paul stated. It’s not Europa, Mars, Jupitor, Kepler 62f or any part of heaven in our universe where other life forms will be found. Even the Seti program and the Kepler project are a waste of time and money, searching the wrong heaven, the wrong universe for extra-terrestrial life. Perhaps someday, Mankind will come up with the technology to tap into the third universe and then they will be looking for alien life like a needle in the haystack. It can only be found through that spiritual connection, Jesus Christ, and then their eyes will be open. Yes, the Apostle Paul was transported to the third heaven, the third universe-without a space ship, without scientific technology. How amazing is Paradise? It’s
    Indescribable.

    END…………………….

    Article by Lou Barreto, a Paradise resident…..Forever

    Note:
    I do have a book on Amazon.com Type in my name or
    titled, “Who is this Alien? (Check it out)

    NBC News publication (Mars vs. Europa Article) click on link
    below
    http://www.newsvine.com/

  • Guest

    Either they are so advanced that they are using longitudinal waves at low frequencies, or civilization, our attempts to organization biological systems is unique. In that case, they migrate across the universe and have no need for long range communications – and that could be bad news for any lifeforms they come across.

    If E.T. is broadcasting from a planet. perhaps they are no more advanced as us, and that is a good sign. If they are advanced and explore space, I doubt the message is to bring a quart of Martian milk or a load of Betelgeuse bread.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X