If we're to be seriously contemplating about a cubic lightyear and, there's 300,000 km/s associated with the speed of light, thereby 31.536^6 seconds per year presses the outcome into being 9.46^12 km per dimension. A cubic lightyear is therefore equating to 846.6^12 in terms of cubic km. Of course there are 1^9 worth of cubic meters per cubic km, thus the entire cubic meter issue that's to be representing a cubic lightyear is 846.6^21 m3. Even if we were to be subsequently calculating upon a molecular mass comprised of merely 106 atoms per m3, that's certainly becoming a good deal of mass.

Now then, I truly hate being the village idiot poop head about this gravity thing but, I do believe there's a sufficient number of lightyears about and, I'm informed there's an even bigger density issue of the cubic lightyear associated with the Sirius star system, which just so happens to include a worthy white dwarf star (Sirius-B) that's supposedly of 65,000 times greater density then our sun (our sun reportedly weighing in at roughly the same mass as water/m3). Although our sun is a truly gravity powerful consideration, I have recently come to understand Sirius B is somewhat smaller than Earth but, none the less imposes a rather substantial influence upon the rather massive Sirius-A, so much so influence that I was merely contemplating upon that issue, whereas just maybe, as compared to those fairly empty m3's of supposedly outer space (reportedly containing merely 106+ atoms/m3) that drift about our solar galaxy, applying what I've recently learned of their containing gravity proportional atoms per m3 gives those m3's a conservative atomic mass of the very least 106 atoms worth or perhaps that's referring to a mass 212 for H2. If we were to multiply that relatively minute mass by the rather substantial gravity boosting factor and then equated that little improvement into whatever a single cubic lightyear surrounding Sirius might contain, along with the entire Sirius star and planetary system mass;  being there's a volume of 846.6^21 m3 per cubic lightyear, what do you suppose that total combined mass would have to represent?

As I've previously stated, my learning of others stipulating or at least suggesting a quantity of 106+ atoms per ISM per m3. However, I've also learned of what quantity exist @1 bar as in a gas phase such as hydrogen on Earth, where the Earthly volume of a cubic meter seems to weigh 41 grams (presumably H2 @83 grams). Most recently from: Martin Gradwell;  I've been informed that one gram of Hydrogen = 6^24 atoms. As such I restarted my reverse calculating as to determine the number of Hydrogen atoms in space and, I've come to that number being roughly 6^12 per m3 if said "outer space" were at roughly 1^-9 mb. I accomplished this by dividing the pressure based upon factors of 10, just to see where that took me and, lo and behold I came to the quantity of H atoms being 6^12 at the level of 1^-9 mb. I believe 1^-9 mb of atmospheric pressure is about as close to "outer space" as one might have to imagen, which is certainly a whole lot different outcome than of the other established 106 atoms/m3. Assuning lesser pressure would certainly further reduce the count of atoms, such as 1^-12 mb would presumably contain but 6^9 atoms per m3 and so on (even 6^6 is a whole lot more than 106). Obviously I'm thoroughly confused, not even mentioning that a good number of what's contained within your typical stellar m3 is likely including a few somewhat heavier atoms than hydrogen, as well as a grain of stellar space dust. What gives?

You simply can't have yourself too big of a space rock:
Even if we could manage to accelerate a sufficiently big space rock (say nuclear pumped xenon propulsion pushing on a smooth rock 100 meters across for obtaining sufficient solar and galactic radiation shield as well as for absorbing whatever impacts) to 300+ km/sec (.1% light speed), at that swift rate we could reach Sirius in perhaps 88 thousand years (at least a 2000 generation crew that's really ripped by the time they get there) plus, taking just about every once of plutonium and Prozac on Earth. Obviously a mere golf ball impact would likely be a catastrophic event, even if our rock was pure titanium. So, bigger is better except for the inherent friction issues of having to penetrate all those supposedly void m3's, which are actually chuck full of atoms and unfortunately, not all of those atoms are going to be hydrogen. So, if we have a sphere of solid rock 100+ meters in diameter colliding with 300,000 m3/sec times the frontage area of our rock which offers a disk area of 7854 m2. As you can quickly see that encountering 6^12 atoms/m3 is a good deal of friction (possibly more than that rock can tollerate), even at the mere 106 atoms/m3 (1^-15 mb) we may have a wee bit of another problem, even if the slightest debris is somehow avoided and energy resources to push this sucker along at 300 km/sec is infinite (like how about HEAT! and lots of it, especially if we should obtain 1% light speed).

From: Christopher M. Jones, I obtained the following input;
"The Omega Centauri globular cluster where stellar density is on the order of 200 stars per cubic lightyear (i.e. ~0.2 ly between stars). 47 Tucanae has a density about an order of magnitude higher (~0.05 ly between stars)"

Besides that latter statement, which I do believe constitutes 8000 stars per ly3, I seem to recall yet another statement of there being 416 cubic ly/star, as that somehow representing a raw galactic or universal estimate of the average density so, it seems there's a good deal of mass, other than merely hydrogen atoms and, I don't recall ever reading there's been any limits established as to how small a "black hole" can be, so obviously (besides H2, common space dust, small to large rocks plus whatever heavier atomic elements) there's yet another gravity consideration worth contemplating, such as "micro black holes" or perhaps whatever E=hf is hiding behind or within those UV spectrum images of NASA's official UFO's.

QUESTION(s): What if a micro black hole the size of a grain of sand were to encounter another object such as Earth, where the mass ratio of the black hole were but one millionth (mass = 5.976^18) that of Earth (mass = 5.976^24). Obviously that micro black hole encounter would create a somewhat terrifically big bang but, not appreciably alter Earth (in other words you and I would be quite dead but Earth would likely survive). Certainly that micro black hole would be assimilated into Earth (which ever object is bigger [in terms of mass] would likely prevail unless this itsy bitsy micro black hole were to be traveling at merely 0.1% light speed) but then, what if the substance of the micro black hole were unlike any elements of Earth, then what? (anti-matter?). Either way we're history as either Earth has assimilated the black hole or else Earth escapes as looking like a doughnut.

I'm discovering that whatever Intersteller Space Medium (ISM) offers is simply of a whole lot more content than 106 hydrogen atoms per m3. Even if we applied a much weaker comparison formula of 1000 cubic ly per star and, if that star were merely like our sun (20^30 kg), dividing that stellar amount by 1000 = 20^27 worth of star mass per ly3 (not even including whatever planets, debris nor free atoms), that much alone is worth roughly 0.236 mg/m3.

If I'm confusing reality or perhaps the "space time continuum", me too, as I tend to believe this makes sense but not necessarily. At 1 bar per 1 gram of Hydrogen = 6^24 atoms (perhaps pressure is a non issue), then obviously 0.236 mg/m3 is to be worth 14.16^20 hydrogen atoms. Taking that factor into the vacuum of space at 1^-14 bar is still a whopping 14.16^6 atoms. So once again confusion rains as I'm thoroughly confused about what's being stipulated about your typical ISM, as 106 atoms/m3 is hardly the same as 14^6 and, that's certainly being entirely conservative by a factor of at least 10, especially if we're contemplating upon the massive Sirius star and whatever planetary components along with it's surrounding cubic lightyear worth of ISM.

Of course, besides our gaining a better understanding of gravity, the only good reason to ever goto Sirius is to kick some serious butt (perhaps kick fish tail unless they're only the one's associated with that 12th planet), in return for all the grief and turmoil they've bestowed upon Earth. In other words; OK, we get the joke, now stop toying with us and help fix everything, perhaps starting with Bush.

For absolute simplicity;  for the moment I'll concede upon the notion that a typical m3 (without any star contributions) might actually contain but 1^6 hydrogen atoms. Next we multiply that by the known density of Sirius ABC (including whatever planets) being a mass of 69^30 and, because the density of space is somewhat proportional to whatever's nearby for gravity, lets us apply the multiplying influence ISM factor of just 69, thus we have 69^6 atoms per m3.

For starters lets try; 846.6^21 X 69^6 = 58.4^30  as for representing just the nearest surrounding cubic lightyear's worth of atomic mass residing about the Sirius star system. Though I certainly might have this part entirely wrong (wouldn't be the first time), our sun is nearly 20^30 kg, so not even including anything other than the cubic lightyear, we're already at 2.9 that of our sun. Now lets introduce Sirius-A = 47^30 and Sirius-B = 20.5^30 (not including Sirius-C nor whatever planets) and we've come to the combined mass of 126^30, that's only a conservative base ratio of 6 times greater then our solar system, which I suppose if that gravity pull were to be complied over thousands of years worth might actually impose something upon our solar system, yet those opposing this influence as well as damn near everything else under the sun, have been stipulating there's absolutely nothing whatsoever and absolutely lesser than nothing upon Earth. So, by the masterful influence of those opposing absolutely everything under the sun, you and myself are to believe that ancient Earth history is entirely bogus and, that perhaps God was not even pro-Jewish because, their God (NASA) has intellectually imprisoned us for eternity on this pathetic planet Earth, along with warlord Bush.

Lets further regress by stipulating or conceding that all of the remaining cubic lightyears devoid of every possible object, debris, dust or even gasses are somewhat conservatively unified at the least possible composition of roughly those 106 Hydrogen atoms per m3, which then equates to an atomic mass of 89.7^25 per cubic lightyear. Of course there's certainly a good selection of other atoms besides good old Hydrogen out there and, thereby most likely a good deal more substance or mass to "outer space" than meets the naked eye. Perhaps that's precisely what those official UV spectrum capable cameras were recording, was the disturbance of those mostly hydrogen atoms when extremely fast UV substance or perhaps micro black hole objects were targeting or merely transporting past Earth (among other interesting attributes, making 90 degree turns at speed by the way).

In order to further support or at least coincide this conjecturing with any degree of reality (besides what David Sereda has to say), I've identified a number of others somewhat specifying the same or a whole lot greater worth as for "outer space" m3 mass, including these two reference pages as follows:

under "StarFormation"
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Uc9Yyo-YZeMC:physun.physics.mcmaster.ca/~reidma/notes/20.StarFormation.ppt+h2+atoms/m3&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"The tenuous mixture of gas and dust that fills the space between the stars is called the interstellar medium, or ISM"  "The average density of the ISM is about 1-5 atoms per cubic centimeter or ~106 atoms/m3"

"The best vacuum ever attained on Earth is about 1010 molecules/m3"

"The density of the ISM is not uniform:
A molecular cloud is a region of the ISM with a typical average density of about 109 particles/m3"

"For a typical molecular cloud with density 104 particles/cm3 and temperature 50 K, the Jeans mass is about 1000 Msolar"

Continuation under "STELLAREVOLUTION"
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:jC_TM-ZnxN8C:www.nv.cc.va.us/home/ggarrigan/NAS130/STELLAREVOLUTION.ppt+h2+atoms/m3&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Obviously I'm entirely out of my field, according to my opponents I'm also out of my mind, however I'm wide open for better ideas as to understanding gravity, as I'm of the impression or illusion that very much like our solar system which is at least somewhat glued together by gravity and, everything pretty much circulates about the sun (hard imagining a massively heavier object orbiting about a much lesser object like Earth) therefore, it seems entirely logical and rational that since Sirius-ABC and of whatever planets plus the surrounding cubic lightyear of it's ISM being so freaking much greater than surrounding our puny solar system and, that Sirius is by far our closest significant other gravity consideration, that it seems more than just a little possible that our solar system and perhaps even Earth is in fact influenced by the Sirius star system, pretty much in the same manner and principal as Earth has been affected by our sun and at least our two nearest planets (especially Venus), as very much exactly like the Dogon tribe have recounted, but then they (Dogon) also understood those four moons of Jupiter and, as far as anyone knows, the Dogon never once had access to any stinking telescope.

I've been wondering about Sirius only because I've been so thoughtfully informed by such supposed experts (God qualified as those charged with opposing absolutely everything Venus because they're so damn smart) that even of Venus being so nearby (as little as .27 AU), as sustained for weeks (not seconds by which all gravity formula seems to be based upon) between that of our sun and Earth plus, at times in direct addition to the lunar gravity component, that apparently (according to these anointed experts) there's been absolutely no measurable impact whatsoever upon Earth, even though the dennsity of all those supposedly empty m3's between us and the sun are not likely so constant but their density/mass somewhat porportional to their distance from the sun, as well as by their associations with Venus and, therby of somewhat if not a great deal more gravity worthy consideration then I'm being informed of. Certainly the Earth's atmosphere and of it's outer surround of mostly Hydrogen is equally a variable density factor and, because Venus has so much more atmosphere as well as being closer to the sun might even suggest that it's outer Hydrogen components are perhaps a whole lot more together then of Earth's (obviously those excess hydrogen atoms of Mars are either long gone or frozen in dry ice). So, I can't but help thinking, there's bound to be an association of worthy m3's containing somewhat more of that supposedly typical 106 X Hydrogen mass, if not even something a whole lot more (I've estimated upwards of at least 6^6), as well as I do believe hearing about there being certain other elements in our universe that surprisingly weigh considerably more than Hydrogen, some of which have collected into sort of space dust, others as sand or even as really big ass space rocks (not to mention whatever blocks of seriously frozen N2, CO2, whatever other gasses plus a few miniture black holes there may be to contend with).

If exposure time to whatever gravity is supposedly such a non issue (at least that's what my esteemed critics have been stipulating, same thing about space radiation by the way). I'm only pondering as to given sufficient time allotment, at what point is mass of sufficient worth (especially mass that's multiples of our solar system), as to be interacting with our solar system and, more exactly as to that which could potentially interact specifically with Earth (such as Venus or perhaps Sirius)?

Certainly the massive Sirius system is not orbiting about our puny existence and, since everything is in some sort of galactic motion (based upon the known laws of gravity, where bigger is nearly always better), seems most likely if not imperative that we're the one's being influenced a whole lot more than not, unless there's something other a whole lot bigger than what Sirius has to offer (a massive black hole would certainly qualify).

Obviously another sun should certainly do the trick for Earth. Lets say a fairly small sun were to arrive into our solar system at 1/10 the mass of sun No.1, certainly that might attribute to something. Perhaps a much lesser object that was merely .01% of our sun should still be of considerable worth. So, I'm trying hard to understand why the massive Sirius star and planetary combined mass, along with whatever the initial surrounding cubic lightyear worth of space, if this were being a relatively constant gravitational pull irregardless of Earth's location within our itsy bitsy puny little solar system, that respectfully such a supposedly insignificantly small gravity impact from Sirius is perhaps something that's somewhat greater then you and I are being informed of and, perhaps the Dogon tribe already knew all of that, yet somehow our crack NASA doesn't have a freaking clue, pretty much like they supposedly can't or elect not to understand GUTH Venus.

So far at least, it's not so much discovering that I'm on target about much of anything "gravity" but, it's the understanding that there's a good deal of variation among the true experts as to what all that ISM amounts to, especially regarding the volume of cubic lightyear surrounding any massive star systems such as Sirius. Traveling from Sirius toward our solar system are consistently lesser densities, where obviously at some point the null/line is crossed where the ISM density again increases as to amounting to what's surrounding our sun. Unless one is planning upon traveling at speeds of 300 km/sec or faster, the ISM may not impose a significant factor, although at 3000 km/sec your spacecraft could be somewhat involved with more cooling aspects than propulsion, as those near google worth of hydrogen atoms per second as well as a good number of other elements are being pushed out of your way or having to be absorbed by that big rock (should hope that 100 meter rock is solid titanium, either that or one hell of an electromatic shield activated).

Perhaps somewhere within all this mess of skewed science and physics, there's a darn good explanation as to why our two deep space probes haven't traveled nearly as far as their original calculations specified and, apparently even after the latest round(s) of calculations taking supposedly everything into account still falls way short. So, obviously there's something either getting in their way or amounting to a whole lot more gravity then meats the eye. Perhaps the focus of this problem is "what meats the eye", as obviously within the spectrums of UV and of shorter wave lengths do exhibit certain qualities of mass as well as energy, at least such energy signatures have been officially recorded by NASA's cameras when working the dark side of Earth. In fact, there were so many uninvited objects involved that often the mission of establishing visual contact via those cameras with another Earth made object was not successful, with those UV spectrum cameras online there was simply tonnes of other stuff going just about everywhere, a good deal of it going like a hypersonic bat out of hell (10 fold to 100+ fold faster than anything we have) and, if all that's not somehow contributing mass, then I certainly don't know what is.