This is interesting because this is a very specific, very testable hypothesis. Volume is a real, measurable thing. So let's fucking test this shit.
For the purposes of this test, I am going to assume that my eyelashes are cylindrical. They probably are not perfect cylinders, but I think this should be sufficient for this investigation. For those of you who have forgotten your geometry, the formula for the volume of a cylinder is π(r^2)h, with r being the radius of the circle and h being the height of the cylinder.
I used a microscope to measure the diameter of a non-mascara-coated eyelash, and divided that in half to get the radius. Since I have already established that my eyelashes are about one centimeter (10,000 micrometers) long, I used that number as my h value. As long as that number remains consistent, my results for the volume should be acceptable.
I found that the diameter of my mascara-free eyelashes is 1 micrometer. (Gotta love simple calculations.)
|Makeup-free eyelash under the microscope. (If you squint, you might be able to make out the scale! Squinting also helps you pretend that this picture isn't blurry.)|
|Korres Mascara'd-Up Lash|
That's not a six-fold increase. That's a thirty-six-fold increase. Although it seems counter-intuitive, a five-fold increase in diameter is not the same as a five-fold increase in volume, since this is going in multiple directions (assuming a cylinder, of course). In order to get a six-fold increase in volume (so makeuped up lash = seven non-makeuped lashes), you only actually have to increase the diameter of the lash √7 times... aka 2.65 times. (If you are having trouble following, keep in mind that π and 10,000 fall out since they are on both sides of the equation. [7π(0.5^2)10,000=π(X^2)10,000; X=2.65]).
|Hopefully this helps demonstrate why an increase in diameter creates such a significant difference in area and, subsequently, volume.|
|The difference between these pictures is numerically impressive.|