What is the proper way to calculate time squared in seconds?

AI Thread Summary
To calculate time squared in seconds from milliseconds, it is essential to square both the numerical value and the units. When squaring 150 milliseconds directly, the result is 22,500 milliseconds squared (ms²), which requires conversion to seconds squared (s²) by multiplying by 10^-6. Alternatively, converting 150 milliseconds to 0.150 seconds before squaring yields 0.0225 seconds squared (s²). The preferred method is to convert to standard units first for clarity in calculations. Proper unit conversion is crucial to ensure accurate results in time squared calculations.
jendrix
Messages
120
Reaction score
4
Hello, I'm currently doing some work on the above and have ran into a problem when calculating the Time squared part as it should be in Seconds squared.

I currently have the time in miliseconds, so say I have

150ms should I square this number then convert it into seconds or convert it first and then square it.

For example 150ms the first way gives 22500 which is 22.5s

Converting it to 0.150s then squaring it gives 0.0225?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(150ms)2 = (0.150s)2 = (0.150)2(s)2 = 0.0225 s2

Or:
(150ms)2 = (150)2(ms)2 = (150)2(0.001 s)2 = 0.0225 s2

Key point:
1 (ms)2 = 10-6 s2
 
I appreciate your help but I'm still puzzled by this.
 
jendrix said:
I appreciate your help but I'm still puzzled by this.
What part puzzles you?
 
I'll try again:
jendrix said:
I currently have the time in miliseconds, so say I have

150ms should I square this number then convert it into seconds or convert it first and then square it.
Whatever you do, you must square both the number and the units.

For example 150ms the first way gives 22500 which is 22.5s
No. When you square 150 ms you end up with 22500 ms2 (not just ms). You'd have to convert from ms2 to s2, which means multiplying by 10-6.

Converting it to 0.150s then squaring it gives 0.0225?
That's fine. Notice that your units are s2.

Personally, I would always convert to standard units before doing any calculations. So I would convert 150 ms to 0.150 s, and then I'd do my squaring.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is there a list of root-power quantities? Or a rule of thumb?
Replies
14
Views
2K
B Newton's second law -- rockets
Replies
6
Views
2K
Two ways of calculating speed?
Replies
11
Views
1K
How distance from CoG affects acceleration over time
Replies
6
Views
2K
Calculating Acceleration Limit Near 10 Solar Mass Object
Replies
16
Views
2K
B Gravity and speed of information for orbiting planets
Replies
22
Views
549
Different units while calculating Acceleration of Rotating Objects
Replies
4
Views
3K
Newtonian gravity and differential equations
Replies
1
Views
1K
A Puzzle Involving the Moon's Orbital Motion
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Acceleration in Newton's second law
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top