I've noticed the following things while studying calculus, and would like experts to tell me if my conclusions are right.
My Observations
If I represent the area of a circle by $A$ and its perimeter by $C$, I can write $$C=\frac{dA}{dr}$$ Similarly, for a sphere, if I represent volume by $V$ and surface area by $S$, I can write $$S=\frac{dV}{dr}$$ I tried doing the same for other 2D and 3D figures, and saw that it worked only in case of the circle and the sphere.
My questions
My questions are:
Why does this happen only in the case of the circle and the sphere?
Can't I express the surface area of a solid in terms of its volume and the perimeter of a closed figure in terms of its area using calculus? Why or why not? I remember reading something of that kind in Jenny Olive's book "Mathematics: A Self-study Guide"
This observation holds for all balls, cubes, and simplexes provided they're centered at the origin.
If we look at a square set in $\Bbb{R}^2$ Euclidean space centered at the origin and having a half-length of $s$, then its area would be $A=(2s)^2=4s^2$ and its perimeter would be $P=\frac{dA}{ds}=8s$.
I'm only an undergraduate, but I can offer this for some intuition: if you have this closure $X\subset\Bbb{R}^n$ and a scaling factor $k>0,\;k\in\Bbb{R}$, then you could get this image $kX$ of $X$ through $x\mapsto kx$ which is this uniform scaling of all points $x\in{X}$ about the origin such that the volume $\operatorname{V}_n(kX)=k^n\operatorname{V}_nX$. So, if you let $k=1+h$ and $h\to0$, then there's going to be this uniform shell of thickness $h$ all around the shape you're looking at (ignoring edge behavior which turns out to not matter anyway because $h\to0$ ). The volume of this shell is going to be $h$ multiplied by the surface area which would be $(n-1)-$dimensional.
This article could probably talk more in depth about it than I can: https://www.math.byu.edu/~mdorff/docs/DorffPaper07.pdf