Volume
A volume would be expressed in cubic meters (m3), not in meters.
By multiplying the number in m3 by 1000.
M2 is square M3 is cubed.
It is 2.2 MT/M3 and not 2.2 Kg/M3
2
Volume
It is "cubic metres".
A volume would be expressed in cubic meters (m3), not in meters.
By multiplying it by the density of the substance (expressed in tonne/m3) that occupies the volume of 1000m3.
Density is measured in mass per volume, in SI units the density is commonly expressed in kg/m3.
Density of matter is expressed in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m^3). It indicates how much mass is contained in a unit volume of a substance.
There are 1000m in a km. Thus if we cube both numbers we get 1,000,000,000m3 in a km3. Therefore, to convert from km3 to m3 you have to multiply the number you have by 1,000,000,000.
Gravity is not measured in Newtons. The Gravitational Constant, as its name implies, was the same a billion years ago as it is today, which is: 6.67 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
I think we can safely say no. If we consider the M3 money supply in the United States for the year 2007 then we're talking around 11.5 trillion dollars then even if we were to assume that all the other countries in the world were as rich as the United States then we still would not get to 1 billion billion dollars. For easy figuring let's round the number of countries up to 200 then we have the following for comparison; M3 for 2007 - (all the money in the US for 2007) $11,500,000,000,000 - 11.5 trillion dollars times 200 countries (number of countries rounded up) $2,300,000,000,000,000 - 2.3 quadrillion dollars one billion billion $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 - 1.0 quintillion dollars References: For the number of countries in the world, http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm M3 Money supply in the US for 2007 http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html Number Notation http://www.math.com/tables/general/numnotation.htm
1000000
fear M3 ?