53

Since Earth is a sphere, one has only a limited visibility radius. How far is that, actually?

This Q&A was inspired by this question, about whether or not Legolas can see the 24km distant Riders of Rohan.

4 Answers4

54

I have up-voted the answer by M.Herzkamp, but I also think he makes it somewhat more complicated than it needs to be. The distance from the center of the earth to your eye is $r+h$, where $r$ is the radius of the earth and $h$ is the height of your eye above the ground. The distance from the center of the earth to a point on the horizon is $r$. The distance from your eye to the point on the horizon let us call $d$. The three sides of a right triangle are then the legs, $r$ and $d$, and the hypotenuse $r+h$. Applying the Pythagorean theorem, we have $$ r^2 + d^2 = (r+h)^2. $$ It follows that $$ d^2 = (r+h)^2 - r^2 $$ so $$ d=\sqrt{(r+h)^2-r^2}. $$ This admits simplifiction: $$ d=\sqrt{(r+h)^2-r^2} = \sqrt{(r^2+2rh+h^2) - r^2} = \sqrt{2rh + h^2}. $$ When $h$ is tiny compared to $r$, we can say $$ d \approx \sqrt{2rh\,{}}. $$

  • 8
    I might be worth clarifying that any objects beyond the horizon can of course be visible if they are high or tall enough - an object at height $H$ is visible to an oberver at height $h$ at distance $d \approx \sqrt{2rh} + \sqrt{2rH}$. – JohannesD Aug 18 '14 at 16:08
  • 7
    @JohannesD I guess an object on the precise polar opposite of you, could be as high as you want, and you still couldn't see it. – Cruncher Aug 18 '14 at 16:34
  • @Cruncher that's more of a limit question. Given a large enough sphere and nothing like an atmosphere in the way, you could see something of sufficient height that was anything but perfectly opposite you. As the object approaches the point perfectly opposite you, it must get taller in order to be seen and the limit approaches positive infinity in height. – Red_Shadow Aug 18 '14 at 18:58
  • 2
    @Red_Shadow you also need to allow your vantage point to be arbitarily high. At any finite height the planet casts a shadow covering some angle. – jxnh Aug 18 '14 at 19:11
  • 1
    @Red_Shadow Actually to see anything (except something perfectly opposite you) both you and the object must be arbitrarily tall/high. If your height is bounded, then you can only see things that are not "below" the infinite conic surface defined by your position and the horizon circle. – JohannesD Aug 18 '14 at 19:20
  • @JohannesD The structure being observed would be perpendicular to the tangent of the sphere at that point. So long as that angle relative to my position was greater than the angle of my line of sight tangent to the sphere, I could see the object (or the top part of it at least). I will admit that given a finite height of the observer, there is a correlation between a shorter observer and a greater area of unobservability. – Red_Shadow Aug 18 '14 at 19:36
  • Do you know what I find weird? It doesn't say for what range of h this is valid.... maths why have you made me such a pedant, but seriously there should be some limiting behavior here that approaches 1/4 of the circumference, also is this linear distance, or an arc? – Alec Teal Aug 18 '14 at 23:10
  • @AlecTeal This is linear distance, it's the line from the eye to the point observer, in the triangle of those two points and the center of the earth. The final approximation is acknowledged to only hold when height is small compared to radius, so it's not applicable when the angle approaches 90 degrees. For the other formulae, why should there be any limit behavior in this case that is not already present in the use of pythagoras? After all the same limit behavior occurs when one point in the triangle approaches infinity. – Taemyr Aug 19 '14 at 14:01
  • 2
    A handy formula implementing the above result is $$d,[{\rm km}]=3.56\cdot\sqrt{h,[{\rm m}]}\ .$$ – Christian Blatter Aug 19 '14 at 18:03
  • The difference between this answer and M.Herzkamp's answer is that this answer gives the distance from your eye to the point on the Earth's surface, while M.Herzkamp's answer gives the distance along the ground. This probably doesn't make much of a difference if you're not very high off the ground, but if you were looking from a vantage point high off the ground (e.g. a spacecraft), it could potentially make a big difference. – Ajedi32 Aug 20 '14 at 14:09
  • This answer could benefit greatly from a modified (relabeled) version of the image used in M.Herzkamp's answer. – Ajedi32 Aug 20 '14 at 14:10
  • For those of you who came here for a number ;) it's about 113 km / 67 miles (using the above formula). – Ben Aug 20 '14 at 15:40
  • @Steve : Whether it's 113 km would depend on the height of the eye above the surface. You're saying it's 113 km at what height?? – Michael Hardy Aug 20 '14 at 15:50
  • @MichaelHardy true, I used 1m (height of Gimli?). For a creature with an eye 2m off the ground, it would be 160km / 94 miles. :) assuming completely transparent atmosphere as well. – Ben Aug 20 '14 at 16:02
44

Let us suppose, an observer of height $h$ stands on a perfectly spherical planet of radius $r$:

schema

Edit: here is an easier way, making use of the right angle between the line of sight and the radial ray. You can just use the definition of the cosine:

$$ \cos(\theta_T) = \frac{r}{r+h} \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad s = r\cdot\theta_T = r\cdot\cos^{-1}\!\!\left(\frac{r}{r+h}\right) $$

which is equivalent to the solution obtained by the complicated method. /Edit

The distance $s$ to the farthest point he can then see is determined by the tangent to the semi circle through his head. If you describe the semi circle in a cartesian coordinate system by $$ y^2+x^2 = r^2, $$ the observer's head is at $y=r+h,\ x=0$.

To obtain the slope of the tangent, we plug the tangent equation $y=mx+r+h$ into the circle equation and solve for $x$: $$ x_{1/2} = -(r+h)\frac{m}{1+m^2} \pm \sqrt{\frac{(r+h)^2m^2}{(1+m^2)^2}+\frac{r^2-b^2}{1+m^2}} $$ Those are two intersection points, and in order to have a tangent, they must be equal. That is the case, if the term under the square root is zero. The resulting equation can be solved for $m$: $$ m_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{\frac{(r+h)^2}{r^2}-1} $$ Let's take the negative solution for the tangent on the right (it does not matter), and calculate the tangent point: $$ x_T = -(r+h)\frac{m_-}{1+m^2_-} = \frac{r}{r+h}\sqrt{(r+h)^2-r^2} $$ The viewing distance angle is $\theta_T = \text{asin}(x_T)$. To get the viewing distance, we observe that $$ \frac{s}{2\pi r} = \frac{\theta_T}{\text{full angle}} = \frac{\theta_T}{2\pi}\text{, with angle in radian} $$ $$ \Rightarrow s(h) = r\cdot\text{asin}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{r^2}{(r+h)^2}}\right) $$ If you plot this for $h$ small compared to $r$, it resembles a square root function, and indeed, $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow0^+}\frac{s(h)}{\sqrt{h}} = \sqrt{2r} $$ which means that for small heights, the viewing distance can be described as $$ s(h) \approx \sqrt{2rh} $$ On Earth ($r\approx6371\text{km}$), a normal person ($h\approx1.8\text{m}$) can see the surface about 4.8km away. Not much further. If you climb a hill or tree ($h\approx 50\text{m}$), your range increases to 25km!

  • 6
    I'd have called it the Pythagorean theorem rather than the "circle equation". ${}\qquad{}$ – Michael Hardy Aug 18 '14 at 15:15
  • 4
    Now we only need to know the height of an average orc ;-) – Stefan Mesken Aug 18 '14 at 15:25
  • This approach, involving solving an equation for $x$, is unnecessarily complicated. I've shown a simpler way in my answer. – Michael Hardy Aug 18 '14 at 16:00
  • 2
    Note that this calculates the distance to the horizont where the completely smooth Earth begins to be in the way of itself. In order words, the distance where you can see the whole orc, including soles of his shoes. If you can live with seeing less of the orc, the distance is greater. – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen Aug 19 '14 at 14:24
  • 1
    Holy cow this is freaking complicated. You should've thrown general relativity in there too! – user541686 Aug 19 '14 at 22:43
15

Atmospheric refraction cannot be neglected. As mentioned here the effect of this can be taken into account approximately by pretending as if the Earth's radius is larger by a factor of 7/6. This makes the distance $d$ to the horizon when the height $h$ is much less than the Earth's radius $R$ equal to

$$d = \sqrt{\frac{7}{3} R h}$$

Count Iblis
  • 10,366
8

If you go sailing, you'll have about 5 nautical miles of visibility (1nm = 1852m). I personally find the nomogram a delightful invention:

enter image description here

Simply draw a straight line between the height of the observer and the height of the object on the horizon (in this case = 0), then read off the geographical range.

ahorn
  • 2,236
  • 1
    Unfortunately the scales are very nearly too large for a 1.8m observer watching a 1.8m object. On the other hand, your chart appears to show about 5 nautical miles, so about 9.26km, which roughly matches M.Herzkamp's answer of 9.6km. – Mooing Duck Aug 19 '14 at 22:24
  • It's most odd that they don't expand the left and center scales (there's no reason for the left scale to be half the height of the right one, a simple manipulation of the determinant produces a bigger scale on the left and center axes, though perhaps it may have been done so that the most common calculations for intended purpose would result in nearly horizontal lines (trading off one source of error for another). – Glen_b Mar 12 '17 at 00:38
  • @Glen_b That's a good point. The actual positioning of each line, and scale of the measurements would be easier to draw with a computer. I see that the left and right lines have the same scale. – ahorn Mar 12 '17 at 06:38