3 ms·
I don't doubt that you're right, but to play devil's advocate Earth's surface to volume ratio is also much higher than the sun's so it cools quicker too.
by irixusr 12y ago
I don't doubt that you're right, but to play devil's advocate Earth's surface to volume ratio is also much higher than the sun's so it cools quicker too.
- vacri 12y agoAs they're both effectively spheres, don't they have the same surface-to-volume ratio?
- HCIdivision17 12y agoThe ratio is actually a function of the radius: v = (4/3) * pi * r^3 s = 4 * pi * r^2 s / v => 3/r This makes a kind of sense in terms of heat transfer: the sun's got a whole lot more insides for radiation to get through before it can even reach the surface to escape. EDIT: line breaks unbreak formulas.
- vacri 12y agoAh, of course. Increase in volume is cubic, area is square. Thanks.
- macromaniac 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio >For a given shape, SA:V is inversely proportional to size. When an object grows in size its volume grows faster than its surface area.
- deciplex 12y agoPerhaps, and furthermore Earth's surface-to-volume ratio would increase quite a lot more shortly afterward, as its shattered remains spread throughout the solar system. I imagine that the Earth would cool off rather quickly, or what's left of it anyway.