If Sweden was to magically float away, at what altitude would it be visible from the southern hemisphere?At What Point Does a World's Twin Planet Disappear, from the Viewer's Perspective?

Translating 'Liber'

Avoiding cliches when writing gods

How to translate “Me doing X” like in online posts?

Can an Eldritch Knight use Action Surge and thus Arcane Charge even when surprised?

How do I write "Show, Don't Tell" as a person with Asperger Syndrome?

After the loss of Challenger, why weren’t Galileo and Ulysses launched by Centaurs on expendable boosters?

How bad would a partial hash leak be, realistically?

Why doesn’t a normal window produce an apparent rainbow?

Does there exist a word to express a male who behaves as a female?

2.8 is missing the Carve option in the Boolean Modifier

Is any name of Vishnu Siva?

Bent spoke design wheels — feasible?

Where does this pattern of naming products come from?

Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?

Print the string equivalents of a phone number

How can non-coders use programs on Github?

Company did not petition for visa in a timely manner. Is asking me to work from overseas, but wants me to take a paycut

Payment instructions from HomeAway look fishy to me

siunitx error: Invalid numerical input

What can cause the front wheel to lock up when going over a small bump?

From the list of 3-tuples, how can I select tuples which contain one for more nines?

Can a user sell my software (MIT license) without modification?

Russian equivalents of "no love lost"

Question about JavaScript Math.random() and basic logic



If Sweden was to magically float away, at what altitude would it be visible from the southern hemisphere?


At What Point Does a World's Twin Planet Disappear, from the Viewer's Perspective?













30












$begingroup$


If a chunk of land mass the size and position of Sweden took off and floated away in a straight line, exiting the atmosphere and orbiting the earth, at what distance would it be visible from, let's say, South Africa?



Alternatively, what size would our planet have to be to allow for such a floating land mass to be visible from the proportionate equivalent of South Africa, while still within the bounds of the planet's atmosphere?



Edit: Thanks for all your detailed and interesting answers! Didn't expect my silly question to blow up like that, tbh.



I was quite tired when I first posted and realize that I haven't specified some things properly.



Originally, I had intended for floating Sweden to remain geostationary, orbiting with the planet rather than around it (because magic).
I thought perhaps the atmosphere's refractivity (which only @Chronocidal mentioned as far as I've seen) might allow for a high enough Sweden to be visible on the horizon, if the observer was positioned at the northernmost point of South Africa, with no obstacles in his line of vision, at maybe 1500 meters above sea level.



In light of the response here, I decided to just have my floating island properly orbit the planet somewhere within the thermosphere and think of a magical reason that would allow for life to exist there.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago















30












$begingroup$


If a chunk of land mass the size and position of Sweden took off and floated away in a straight line, exiting the atmosphere and orbiting the earth, at what distance would it be visible from, let's say, South Africa?



Alternatively, what size would our planet have to be to allow for such a floating land mass to be visible from the proportionate equivalent of South Africa, while still within the bounds of the planet's atmosphere?



Edit: Thanks for all your detailed and interesting answers! Didn't expect my silly question to blow up like that, tbh.



I was quite tired when I first posted and realize that I haven't specified some things properly.



Originally, I had intended for floating Sweden to remain geostationary, orbiting with the planet rather than around it (because magic).
I thought perhaps the atmosphere's refractivity (which only @Chronocidal mentioned as far as I've seen) might allow for a high enough Sweden to be visible on the horizon, if the observer was positioned at the northernmost point of South Africa, with no obstacles in his line of vision, at maybe 1500 meters above sea level.



In light of the response here, I decided to just have my floating island properly orbit the planet somewhere within the thermosphere and think of a magical reason that would allow for life to exist there.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago













30












30








30


1



$begingroup$


If a chunk of land mass the size and position of Sweden took off and floated away in a straight line, exiting the atmosphere and orbiting the earth, at what distance would it be visible from, let's say, South Africa?



Alternatively, what size would our planet have to be to allow for such a floating land mass to be visible from the proportionate equivalent of South Africa, while still within the bounds of the planet's atmosphere?



Edit: Thanks for all your detailed and interesting answers! Didn't expect my silly question to blow up like that, tbh.



I was quite tired when I first posted and realize that I haven't specified some things properly.



Originally, I had intended for floating Sweden to remain geostationary, orbiting with the planet rather than around it (because magic).
I thought perhaps the atmosphere's refractivity (which only @Chronocidal mentioned as far as I've seen) might allow for a high enough Sweden to be visible on the horizon, if the observer was positioned at the northernmost point of South Africa, with no obstacles in his line of vision, at maybe 1500 meters above sea level.



In light of the response here, I decided to just have my floating island properly orbit the planet somewhere within the thermosphere and think of a magical reason that would allow for life to exist there.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




If a chunk of land mass the size and position of Sweden took off and floated away in a straight line, exiting the atmosphere and orbiting the earth, at what distance would it be visible from, let's say, South Africa?



Alternatively, what size would our planet have to be to allow for such a floating land mass to be visible from the proportionate equivalent of South Africa, while still within the bounds of the planet's atmosphere?



Edit: Thanks for all your detailed and interesting answers! Didn't expect my silly question to blow up like that, tbh.



I was quite tired when I first posted and realize that I haven't specified some things properly.



Originally, I had intended for floating Sweden to remain geostationary, orbiting with the planet rather than around it (because magic).
I thought perhaps the atmosphere's refractivity (which only @Chronocidal mentioned as far as I've seen) might allow for a high enough Sweden to be visible on the horizon, if the observer was positioned at the northernmost point of South Africa, with no obstacles in his line of vision, at maybe 1500 meters above sea level.



In light of the response here, I decided to just have my floating island properly orbit the planet somewhere within the thermosphere and think of a magical reason that would allow for life to exist there.







geography moons astronomy






share|improve this question









New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







Pangolin













New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked May 28 at 10:06









PangolinPangolin

160125




160125




New contributor



Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Pangolin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















82












$begingroup$

Given Sweden has a latitude of 60° N and south Africa of a bit over 30° S, you can never see one from the other no matter how high one is and no matter how small the planet is (as long as it still is big enough to allow you to neglect the distance between your eyes and the surface).



The Sweden simply rises further away in the hemisphere invisible from South Africa.



That is if Sweden rises simply above and continues to stay above the used-to-be-Sweden, i.e rotates with Earth. If it starts orbiting Earth forming new moon, it will probably pass over South Africa sooner or later. Obviously, I am magically hand-waving away the atmospheric friction.



Edit: very sophisticated visualization:
graphics



Edit 2: for a more general solution, given both points have the same longitude:
cos (difference in latitude) = (Earth radius, 6378 km)/(Sweden distance from Earth center, i.e. height + Earth radius).



For point directly below equator this yield



0.5 = cos(60 - 0) = 6378/(h+6378) -> h = 6378 km 


waaaay above atmosphere.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    May 30 at 13:03


















52












$begingroup$

There is no atmospheric height any object of any size can be, perpendicular to the location of Sweden, that could be seen by anyone standing anywhere in South Africa.



I don't need math to prove this. Just take out a piece of paper, draw a circle, and use a ruler to start drawing lines. That combination cannot be done.



Alternatively, visit maps.google.com, scroll out until you can see the whole planet, and rotate it until Sweden is in the middle. It'll look something like this (credit: Google):



enter image description here



Molot's answer (which is the mathematically pure answer, go vote for it) brings out that tall things slightly beyond the edge of the hemisphere defined by Sweden acting as the pole or center of the circle will see Sweden if it's high enough. But below that it's geometrically impossible — there's a planet in the way.



And that example, above, assumes we send Sweden so far away that the entirety of its defined hemisphere can see it. If we limit that height to keep it within the atmosphere, then the total area that can see it at any height within the atmosphere (~300 mi thick) is something more like this:



enter image description here



Compared to the radius of the Earth, our atmosphere is proverbially as thick as a sheet of paper. Variations in land height don't matter, either, as those variations are less than the dimples on a golf ball compared to the radius of the Earth. When you're talking about the entire planet, it can be reasonably modeled as a smooth surface.



Conclusion



There is no height within the atmosphere that would allow Sweden to be seen from any point within what we would normally call the Southern Hemisphere. There is a height where it could be seen by a couple of points in the Southern Hemisphere (see that area below the dashed line in Africa? Yeah, the dashed line is the equator), but Sweden would be so far outside Earth's atmosphere that it likely doesn't matter for your story.



This assumes you do not subscribe to the Flat Earth theory. I don't.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Innovine
    May 28 at 19:41







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
    $endgroup$
    – Cœur
    May 29 at 1:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Cœur 😀 Touché.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    May 29 at 1:45






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    May 29 at 18:29






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
    $endgroup$
    – Fattie
    May 30 at 12:32


















6












$begingroup$


This answer is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the 'horizon' formula is valid for any value of h.

Unfortunately, this is simply not true, and as the image shows, it is only a valid approximation when h is much less than RE




(RE >> h)





If you can see something depends on how high you are, and how high is what you look at:



enter image description here



Africa is reasonably flat*, so assume a person 2 meters tall (or he may be standing on something ;) )



You can look and fiddle with the numbers here with nice calculator that does the math for you. With Observer at 2 meters and object at the edge of space (100km) visual horizon is at the distance of 1134km. Distance from Sweden to South Africa is 10058 km, so it is about ten times too far to have a line of sight.



To get the line of sight, you will need to put Sweden at height of about 7922km. That's outside atmosphere, but inside Van Allen radiation belt, so long time life support would be hard for at least these two reasons.




* Of course for more precise result you should include the mean or max elevation of South Africa, and decide where, exactly, your observer is placed to account for mountains, valleys, trees and so on. The above calculation is meant as an estimate, and to show a way how to calculate it yourself.



The question says only "from South Africa" so we can assume optimal point of observation, Thabana Ntlenyana 3482 meters high (+2m person) for the flying height of "mere" 3452km. No trees or other mountains to significantly change this altitude.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    May 28 at 14:41






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
    $endgroup$
    – Brythan
    May 28 at 14:47






  • 38




    $begingroup$
    I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
    $endgroup$
    – brhans
    May 28 at 18:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    May 28 at 18:48






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 29 at 20:13


















1












$begingroup$

If you imagine an idealised planet with a star at an infinite distance, how much of the planet can see it? The answer is half: the star projects a cone that rests on an equatorial line perpendicular to the direction it lies in. Those standing on that equatorial line are looking along the tangent to the curve of the surface of the planet.



So the basic question is, what is the minimum distance at which this is still possible, or rather, given two opposite points on a circle, where do their tangents intersect? This is effectively squaring the circle that forms said equator, which simplifies down to the square root of 2r^2 (minus the radius of the Earth if you want the height above it).



In the case of Earth, that comes to 2,639km, however there are other factors regarding the shape of the orbit that might have an effect. Obviously, given an orbit it will not be visible at all times to the whole planet. However, if that orbit is geostationary (e.g. proportional to the rotational speed of the planet) it will only be visible to half the planet when above said height.



Given orbits are elliptical, it's also possible that it is not above that height the entire orbit. If the orbit resonates with the rotation of the planet and has a low point below said height, this could create dead spots that will never see it in the sky.



Finally, there's always the possibility of mountain ranges and atmosphere practically limiting visibility along the line of the tangent.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Pangolin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147916%2fif-sweden-was-to-magically-float-away-at-what-altitude-would-it-be-visible-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    82












    $begingroup$

    Given Sweden has a latitude of 60° N and south Africa of a bit over 30° S, you can never see one from the other no matter how high one is and no matter how small the planet is (as long as it still is big enough to allow you to neglect the distance between your eyes and the surface).



    The Sweden simply rises further away in the hemisphere invisible from South Africa.



    That is if Sweden rises simply above and continues to stay above the used-to-be-Sweden, i.e rotates with Earth. If it starts orbiting Earth forming new moon, it will probably pass over South Africa sooner or later. Obviously, I am magically hand-waving away the atmospheric friction.



    Edit: very sophisticated visualization:
    graphics



    Edit 2: for a more general solution, given both points have the same longitude:
    cos (difference in latitude) = (Earth radius, 6378 km)/(Sweden distance from Earth center, i.e. height + Earth radius).



    For point directly below equator this yield



    0.5 = cos(60 - 0) = 6378/(h+6378) -> h = 6378 km 


    waaaay above atmosphere.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      May 30 at 13:03















    82












    $begingroup$

    Given Sweden has a latitude of 60° N and south Africa of a bit over 30° S, you can never see one from the other no matter how high one is and no matter how small the planet is (as long as it still is big enough to allow you to neglect the distance between your eyes and the surface).



    The Sweden simply rises further away in the hemisphere invisible from South Africa.



    That is if Sweden rises simply above and continues to stay above the used-to-be-Sweden, i.e rotates with Earth. If it starts orbiting Earth forming new moon, it will probably pass over South Africa sooner or later. Obviously, I am magically hand-waving away the atmospheric friction.



    Edit: very sophisticated visualization:
    graphics



    Edit 2: for a more general solution, given both points have the same longitude:
    cos (difference in latitude) = (Earth radius, 6378 km)/(Sweden distance from Earth center, i.e. height + Earth radius).



    For point directly below equator this yield



    0.5 = cos(60 - 0) = 6378/(h+6378) -> h = 6378 km 


    waaaay above atmosphere.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      May 30 at 13:03













    82












    82








    82





    $begingroup$

    Given Sweden has a latitude of 60° N and south Africa of a bit over 30° S, you can never see one from the other no matter how high one is and no matter how small the planet is (as long as it still is big enough to allow you to neglect the distance between your eyes and the surface).



    The Sweden simply rises further away in the hemisphere invisible from South Africa.



    That is if Sweden rises simply above and continues to stay above the used-to-be-Sweden, i.e rotates with Earth. If it starts orbiting Earth forming new moon, it will probably pass over South Africa sooner or later. Obviously, I am magically hand-waving away the atmospheric friction.



    Edit: very sophisticated visualization:
    graphics



    Edit 2: for a more general solution, given both points have the same longitude:
    cos (difference in latitude) = (Earth radius, 6378 km)/(Sweden distance from Earth center, i.e. height + Earth radius).



    For point directly below equator this yield



    0.5 = cos(60 - 0) = 6378/(h+6378) -> h = 6378 km 


    waaaay above atmosphere.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$



    Given Sweden has a latitude of 60° N and south Africa of a bit over 30° S, you can never see one from the other no matter how high one is and no matter how small the planet is (as long as it still is big enough to allow you to neglect the distance between your eyes and the surface).



    The Sweden simply rises further away in the hemisphere invisible from South Africa.



    That is if Sweden rises simply above and continues to stay above the used-to-be-Sweden, i.e rotates with Earth. If it starts orbiting Earth forming new moon, it will probably pass over South Africa sooner or later. Obviously, I am magically hand-waving away the atmospheric friction.



    Edit: very sophisticated visualization:
    graphics



    Edit 2: for a more general solution, given both points have the same longitude:
    cos (difference in latitude) = (Earth radius, 6378 km)/(Sweden distance from Earth center, i.e. height + Earth radius).



    For point directly below equator this yield



    0.5 = cos(60 - 0) = 6378/(h+6378) -> h = 6378 km 


    waaaay above atmosphere.







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited May 29 at 13:12









    Machavity

    1,007414




    1,007414






    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    answered May 28 at 12:25









    MoriMori

    83117




    83117




    New contributor



    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




    New contributor




    Mori is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.













    • $begingroup$
      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      May 30 at 13:03
















    • $begingroup$
      Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      May 30 at 13:03















    $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    May 30 at 13:03




    $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    May 30 at 13:03











    52












    $begingroup$

    There is no atmospheric height any object of any size can be, perpendicular to the location of Sweden, that could be seen by anyone standing anywhere in South Africa.



    I don't need math to prove this. Just take out a piece of paper, draw a circle, and use a ruler to start drawing lines. That combination cannot be done.



    Alternatively, visit maps.google.com, scroll out until you can see the whole planet, and rotate it until Sweden is in the middle. It'll look something like this (credit: Google):



    enter image description here



    Molot's answer (which is the mathematically pure answer, go vote for it) brings out that tall things slightly beyond the edge of the hemisphere defined by Sweden acting as the pole or center of the circle will see Sweden if it's high enough. But below that it's geometrically impossible — there's a planet in the way.



    And that example, above, assumes we send Sweden so far away that the entirety of its defined hemisphere can see it. If we limit that height to keep it within the atmosphere, then the total area that can see it at any height within the atmosphere (~300 mi thick) is something more like this:



    enter image description here



    Compared to the radius of the Earth, our atmosphere is proverbially as thick as a sheet of paper. Variations in land height don't matter, either, as those variations are less than the dimples on a golf ball compared to the radius of the Earth. When you're talking about the entire planet, it can be reasonably modeled as a smooth surface.



    Conclusion



    There is no height within the atmosphere that would allow Sweden to be seen from any point within what we would normally call the Southern Hemisphere. There is a height where it could be seen by a couple of points in the Southern Hemisphere (see that area below the dashed line in Africa? Yeah, the dashed line is the equator), but Sweden would be so far outside Earth's atmosphere that it likely doesn't matter for your story.



    This assumes you do not subscribe to the Flat Earth theory. I don't.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Innovine
      May 28 at 19:41







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
      $endgroup$
      – Cœur
      May 29 at 1:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cœur 😀 Touché.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      May 29 at 1:45






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
      $endgroup$
      – reirab
      May 29 at 18:29






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
      $endgroup$
      – Fattie
      May 30 at 12:32















    52












    $begingroup$

    There is no atmospheric height any object of any size can be, perpendicular to the location of Sweden, that could be seen by anyone standing anywhere in South Africa.



    I don't need math to prove this. Just take out a piece of paper, draw a circle, and use a ruler to start drawing lines. That combination cannot be done.



    Alternatively, visit maps.google.com, scroll out until you can see the whole planet, and rotate it until Sweden is in the middle. It'll look something like this (credit: Google):



    enter image description here



    Molot's answer (which is the mathematically pure answer, go vote for it) brings out that tall things slightly beyond the edge of the hemisphere defined by Sweden acting as the pole or center of the circle will see Sweden if it's high enough. But below that it's geometrically impossible — there's a planet in the way.



    And that example, above, assumes we send Sweden so far away that the entirety of its defined hemisphere can see it. If we limit that height to keep it within the atmosphere, then the total area that can see it at any height within the atmosphere (~300 mi thick) is something more like this:



    enter image description here



    Compared to the radius of the Earth, our atmosphere is proverbially as thick as a sheet of paper. Variations in land height don't matter, either, as those variations are less than the dimples on a golf ball compared to the radius of the Earth. When you're talking about the entire planet, it can be reasonably modeled as a smooth surface.



    Conclusion



    There is no height within the atmosphere that would allow Sweden to be seen from any point within what we would normally call the Southern Hemisphere. There is a height where it could be seen by a couple of points in the Southern Hemisphere (see that area below the dashed line in Africa? Yeah, the dashed line is the equator), but Sweden would be so far outside Earth's atmosphere that it likely doesn't matter for your story.



    This assumes you do not subscribe to the Flat Earth theory. I don't.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Innovine
      May 28 at 19:41







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
      $endgroup$
      – Cœur
      May 29 at 1:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cœur 😀 Touché.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      May 29 at 1:45






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
      $endgroup$
      – reirab
      May 29 at 18:29






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
      $endgroup$
      – Fattie
      May 30 at 12:32













    52












    52








    52





    $begingroup$

    There is no atmospheric height any object of any size can be, perpendicular to the location of Sweden, that could be seen by anyone standing anywhere in South Africa.



    I don't need math to prove this. Just take out a piece of paper, draw a circle, and use a ruler to start drawing lines. That combination cannot be done.



    Alternatively, visit maps.google.com, scroll out until you can see the whole planet, and rotate it until Sweden is in the middle. It'll look something like this (credit: Google):



    enter image description here



    Molot's answer (which is the mathematically pure answer, go vote for it) brings out that tall things slightly beyond the edge of the hemisphere defined by Sweden acting as the pole or center of the circle will see Sweden if it's high enough. But below that it's geometrically impossible — there's a planet in the way.



    And that example, above, assumes we send Sweden so far away that the entirety of its defined hemisphere can see it. If we limit that height to keep it within the atmosphere, then the total area that can see it at any height within the atmosphere (~300 mi thick) is something more like this:



    enter image description here



    Compared to the radius of the Earth, our atmosphere is proverbially as thick as a sheet of paper. Variations in land height don't matter, either, as those variations are less than the dimples on a golf ball compared to the radius of the Earth. When you're talking about the entire planet, it can be reasonably modeled as a smooth surface.



    Conclusion



    There is no height within the atmosphere that would allow Sweden to be seen from any point within what we would normally call the Southern Hemisphere. There is a height where it could be seen by a couple of points in the Southern Hemisphere (see that area below the dashed line in Africa? Yeah, the dashed line is the equator), but Sweden would be so far outside Earth's atmosphere that it likely doesn't matter for your story.



    This assumes you do not subscribe to the Flat Earth theory. I don't.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    There is no atmospheric height any object of any size can be, perpendicular to the location of Sweden, that could be seen by anyone standing anywhere in South Africa.



    I don't need math to prove this. Just take out a piece of paper, draw a circle, and use a ruler to start drawing lines. That combination cannot be done.



    Alternatively, visit maps.google.com, scroll out until you can see the whole planet, and rotate it until Sweden is in the middle. It'll look something like this (credit: Google):



    enter image description here



    Molot's answer (which is the mathematically pure answer, go vote for it) brings out that tall things slightly beyond the edge of the hemisphere defined by Sweden acting as the pole or center of the circle will see Sweden if it's high enough. But below that it's geometrically impossible — there's a planet in the way.



    And that example, above, assumes we send Sweden so far away that the entirety of its defined hemisphere can see it. If we limit that height to keep it within the atmosphere, then the total area that can see it at any height within the atmosphere (~300 mi thick) is something more like this:



    enter image description here



    Compared to the radius of the Earth, our atmosphere is proverbially as thick as a sheet of paper. Variations in land height don't matter, either, as those variations are less than the dimples on a golf ball compared to the radius of the Earth. When you're talking about the entire planet, it can be reasonably modeled as a smooth surface.



    Conclusion



    There is no height within the atmosphere that would allow Sweden to be seen from any point within what we would normally call the Southern Hemisphere. There is a height where it could be seen by a couple of points in the Southern Hemisphere (see that area below the dashed line in Africa? Yeah, the dashed line is the equator), but Sweden would be so far outside Earth's atmosphere that it likely doesn't matter for your story.



    This assumes you do not subscribe to the Flat Earth theory. I don't.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited May 28 at 16:45

























    answered May 28 at 16:12









    JBHJBH

    53.1k8117258




    53.1k8117258







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Innovine
      May 28 at 19:41







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
      $endgroup$
      – Cœur
      May 29 at 1:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cœur 😀 Touché.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      May 29 at 1:45






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
      $endgroup$
      – reirab
      May 29 at 18:29






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
      $endgroup$
      – Fattie
      May 30 at 12:32












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
      $endgroup$
      – Innovine
      May 28 at 19:41







    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
      $endgroup$
      – Cœur
      May 29 at 1:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cœur 😀 Touché.
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      May 29 at 1:45






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
      $endgroup$
      – reirab
      May 29 at 18:29






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
      $endgroup$
      – Fattie
      May 30 at 12:32







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Innovine
    May 28 at 19:41





    $begingroup$
    I don't think it'll be visible at any height. Just like the north star isn't visible, and that's so far away it might as well be at infinity. Molots maths is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Innovine
    May 28 at 19:41





    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
    $endgroup$
    – Cœur
    May 29 at 1:43




    $begingroup$
    Geometry is part of mathematics. So when you're drawing lines, you're doing maths.
    $endgroup$
    – Cœur
    May 29 at 1:43




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Cœur 😀 Touché.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    May 29 at 1:45




    $begingroup$
    @Cœur 😀 Touché.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    May 29 at 1:45




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    May 29 at 18:29




    $begingroup$
    By the way, while 300 miles is still technically inside the atmosphere in the sense of being inside the thermosphere, it's very much not "inside the atmosphere" in the sense of having useful amounts of air pressure for purposes such as flying or human survival without a space suit. For comparison, the International Space Station orbits at around 250 miles. 300 miles is, for most practical purposes, outer space. A common definition of outer space is above the Kármán line, which is around 60 miles. Ability for a human to survive ends before 10 miles.
    $endgroup$
    – reirab
    May 29 at 18:29




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
    $endgroup$
    – Fattie
    May 30 at 12:32




    $begingroup$
    This is the correct answer. Simply look at a map centered on Sweden. High-Sweden will, obviously, only ever be visible from the half of the world you see on the map. It's just that simple.
    $endgroup$
    – Fattie
    May 30 at 12:32











    6












    $begingroup$


    This answer is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the 'horizon' formula is valid for any value of h.

    Unfortunately, this is simply not true, and as the image shows, it is only a valid approximation when h is much less than RE




    (RE >> h)





    If you can see something depends on how high you are, and how high is what you look at:



    enter image description here



    Africa is reasonably flat*, so assume a person 2 meters tall (or he may be standing on something ;) )



    You can look and fiddle with the numbers here with nice calculator that does the math for you. With Observer at 2 meters and object at the edge of space (100km) visual horizon is at the distance of 1134km. Distance from Sweden to South Africa is 10058 km, so it is about ten times too far to have a line of sight.



    To get the line of sight, you will need to put Sweden at height of about 7922km. That's outside atmosphere, but inside Van Allen radiation belt, so long time life support would be hard for at least these two reasons.




    * Of course for more precise result you should include the mean or max elevation of South Africa, and decide where, exactly, your observer is placed to account for mountains, valleys, trees and so on. The above calculation is meant as an estimate, and to show a way how to calculate it yourself.



    The question says only "from South Africa" so we can assume optimal point of observation, Thabana Ntlenyana 3482 meters high (+2m person) for the flying height of "mere" 3452km. No trees or other mountains to significantly change this altitude.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      May 28 at 14:41






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
      $endgroup$
      – Brythan
      May 28 at 14:47






    • 38




      $begingroup$
      I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
      $endgroup$
      – brhans
      May 28 at 18:42






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      May 28 at 18:48






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 29 at 20:13















    6












    $begingroup$


    This answer is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the 'horizon' formula is valid for any value of h.

    Unfortunately, this is simply not true, and as the image shows, it is only a valid approximation when h is much less than RE




    (RE >> h)





    If you can see something depends on how high you are, and how high is what you look at:



    enter image description here



    Africa is reasonably flat*, so assume a person 2 meters tall (or he may be standing on something ;) )



    You can look and fiddle with the numbers here with nice calculator that does the math for you. With Observer at 2 meters and object at the edge of space (100km) visual horizon is at the distance of 1134km. Distance from Sweden to South Africa is 10058 km, so it is about ten times too far to have a line of sight.



    To get the line of sight, you will need to put Sweden at height of about 7922km. That's outside atmosphere, but inside Van Allen radiation belt, so long time life support would be hard for at least these two reasons.




    * Of course for more precise result you should include the mean or max elevation of South Africa, and decide where, exactly, your observer is placed to account for mountains, valleys, trees and so on. The above calculation is meant as an estimate, and to show a way how to calculate it yourself.



    The question says only "from South Africa" so we can assume optimal point of observation, Thabana Ntlenyana 3482 meters high (+2m person) for the flying height of "mere" 3452km. No trees or other mountains to significantly change this altitude.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      May 28 at 14:41






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
      $endgroup$
      – Brythan
      May 28 at 14:47






    • 38




      $begingroup$
      I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
      $endgroup$
      – brhans
      May 28 at 18:42






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      May 28 at 18:48






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 29 at 20:13













    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$


    This answer is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the 'horizon' formula is valid for any value of h.

    Unfortunately, this is simply not true, and as the image shows, it is only a valid approximation when h is much less than RE




    (RE >> h)





    If you can see something depends on how high you are, and how high is what you look at:



    enter image description here



    Africa is reasonably flat*, so assume a person 2 meters tall (or he may be standing on something ;) )



    You can look and fiddle with the numbers here with nice calculator that does the math for you. With Observer at 2 meters and object at the edge of space (100km) visual horizon is at the distance of 1134km. Distance from Sweden to South Africa is 10058 km, so it is about ten times too far to have a line of sight.



    To get the line of sight, you will need to put Sweden at height of about 7922km. That's outside atmosphere, but inside Van Allen radiation belt, so long time life support would be hard for at least these two reasons.




    * Of course for more precise result you should include the mean or max elevation of South Africa, and decide where, exactly, your observer is placed to account for mountains, valleys, trees and so on. The above calculation is meant as an estimate, and to show a way how to calculate it yourself.



    The question says only "from South Africa" so we can assume optimal point of observation, Thabana Ntlenyana 3482 meters high (+2m person) for the flying height of "mere" 3452km. No trees or other mountains to significantly change this altitude.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




    This answer is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the 'horizon' formula is valid for any value of h.

    Unfortunately, this is simply not true, and as the image shows, it is only a valid approximation when h is much less than RE




    (RE >> h)





    If you can see something depends on how high you are, and how high is what you look at:



    enter image description here



    Africa is reasonably flat*, so assume a person 2 meters tall (or he may be standing on something ;) )



    You can look and fiddle with the numbers here with nice calculator that does the math for you. With Observer at 2 meters and object at the edge of space (100km) visual horizon is at the distance of 1134km. Distance from Sweden to South Africa is 10058 km, so it is about ten times too far to have a line of sight.



    To get the line of sight, you will need to put Sweden at height of about 7922km. That's outside atmosphere, but inside Van Allen radiation belt, so long time life support would be hard for at least these two reasons.




    * Of course for more precise result you should include the mean or max elevation of South Africa, and decide where, exactly, your observer is placed to account for mountains, valleys, trees and so on. The above calculation is meant as an estimate, and to show a way how to calculate it yourself.



    The question says only "from South Africa" so we can assume optimal point of observation, Thabana Ntlenyana 3482 meters high (+2m person) for the flying height of "mere" 3452km. No trees or other mountains to significantly change this altitude.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday


























    community wiki





    4 revs, 2 users 83%
    Mołot








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      May 28 at 14:41






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
      $endgroup$
      – Brythan
      May 28 at 14:47






    • 38




      $begingroup$
      I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
      $endgroup$
      – brhans
      May 28 at 18:42






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      May 28 at 18:48






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 29 at 20:13












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
      $endgroup$
      – Mołot
      May 28 at 14:41






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
      $endgroup$
      – Brythan
      May 28 at 14:47






    • 38




      $begingroup$
      I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
      $endgroup$
      – brhans
      May 28 at 18:42






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      May 28 at 18:48






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 29 at 20:13







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    May 28 at 14:41




    $begingroup$
    @Brythan do you really believe that trees will have a significant impact on the 7922km needed and the fact that it is higher than the edge of the atmosphere? Also, South Africa has mean elevation of 1,200 m (3,900 ft), and at least 40% of the surface is at a higher elevation, so inhabitants could probably see above any mountains between them and Flying Sweden if they wanted - that's the sense behind my "reasonably flat" assertion. In this context, it is. Sure, a simplification, but one that works.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    May 28 at 14:41




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
    $endgroup$
    – Brythan
    May 28 at 14:47




    $begingroup$
    In the context where two meters of height matters, a ten meter tree matters. And the problem isn't mountains far away. It's the nearby hills. If you are one kilometer above sea level plus two meters of height and there is a hill a half kilometer away that is also one kilometer high with thirty meters of trees at the top, your 1002 meters is actually below the 1030 meters. You are only "simplifying" the parts that hurt your argument. You are bringing in the complexity that helps it. I'm fine with ignoring tree and hill height if you ignore perspective height. But not half including
    $endgroup$
    – Brythan
    May 28 at 14:47




    38




    38




    $begingroup$
    I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
    $endgroup$
    – brhans
    May 28 at 18:42




    $begingroup$
    I think you've failed to account for the fact that the horizon formula you're using (and the online calculator) is only an approximation, and specifically only works for RE >> h (as noted in the image you've used). You're plugging in an h value (7922km) which is not only not much less then RE, it is in fact greater than RE.
    $endgroup$
    – brhans
    May 28 at 18:42




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    May 28 at 18:48




    $begingroup$
    To see that @brhans is correct, and that the calculator is using an invalid approximation, try plugging in h_1 = some ridiculously large number (like 10,000,000 km, or any number much greater than the radius of the Earth) and h_2 = 0. Depending on how you define "distance to the horizon" in this case, you should either get a result that is the line-of-sight distance (very close to h_1) or something that indicates that you can see half of the Earth (a number very close to 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, or about 10,000 km.) But you don't.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    May 28 at 18:48




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 29 at 20:13




    $begingroup$
    Unfortunately for the correctness of this answer, you've run into one of the edge cases where the approximation you use in step 1 doesn't work.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 29 at 20:13











    1












    $begingroup$

    If you imagine an idealised planet with a star at an infinite distance, how much of the planet can see it? The answer is half: the star projects a cone that rests on an equatorial line perpendicular to the direction it lies in. Those standing on that equatorial line are looking along the tangent to the curve of the surface of the planet.



    So the basic question is, what is the minimum distance at which this is still possible, or rather, given two opposite points on a circle, where do their tangents intersect? This is effectively squaring the circle that forms said equator, which simplifies down to the square root of 2r^2 (minus the radius of the Earth if you want the height above it).



    In the case of Earth, that comes to 2,639km, however there are other factors regarding the shape of the orbit that might have an effect. Obviously, given an orbit it will not be visible at all times to the whole planet. However, if that orbit is geostationary (e.g. proportional to the rotational speed of the planet) it will only be visible to half the planet when above said height.



    Given orbits are elliptical, it's also possible that it is not above that height the entire orbit. If the orbit resonates with the rotation of the planet and has a low point below said height, this could create dead spots that will never see it in the sky.



    Finally, there's always the possibility of mountain ranges and atmosphere practically limiting visibility along the line of the tangent.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      If you imagine an idealised planet with a star at an infinite distance, how much of the planet can see it? The answer is half: the star projects a cone that rests on an equatorial line perpendicular to the direction it lies in. Those standing on that equatorial line are looking along the tangent to the curve of the surface of the planet.



      So the basic question is, what is the minimum distance at which this is still possible, or rather, given two opposite points on a circle, where do their tangents intersect? This is effectively squaring the circle that forms said equator, which simplifies down to the square root of 2r^2 (minus the radius of the Earth if you want the height above it).



      In the case of Earth, that comes to 2,639km, however there are other factors regarding the shape of the orbit that might have an effect. Obviously, given an orbit it will not be visible at all times to the whole planet. However, if that orbit is geostationary (e.g. proportional to the rotational speed of the planet) it will only be visible to half the planet when above said height.



      Given orbits are elliptical, it's also possible that it is not above that height the entire orbit. If the orbit resonates with the rotation of the planet and has a low point below said height, this could create dead spots that will never see it in the sky.



      Finally, there's always the possibility of mountain ranges and atmosphere practically limiting visibility along the line of the tangent.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        If you imagine an idealised planet with a star at an infinite distance, how much of the planet can see it? The answer is half: the star projects a cone that rests on an equatorial line perpendicular to the direction it lies in. Those standing on that equatorial line are looking along the tangent to the curve of the surface of the planet.



        So the basic question is, what is the minimum distance at which this is still possible, or rather, given two opposite points on a circle, where do their tangents intersect? This is effectively squaring the circle that forms said equator, which simplifies down to the square root of 2r^2 (minus the radius of the Earth if you want the height above it).



        In the case of Earth, that comes to 2,639km, however there are other factors regarding the shape of the orbit that might have an effect. Obviously, given an orbit it will not be visible at all times to the whole planet. However, if that orbit is geostationary (e.g. proportional to the rotational speed of the planet) it will only be visible to half the planet when above said height.



        Given orbits are elliptical, it's also possible that it is not above that height the entire orbit. If the orbit resonates with the rotation of the planet and has a low point below said height, this could create dead spots that will never see it in the sky.



        Finally, there's always the possibility of mountain ranges and atmosphere practically limiting visibility along the line of the tangent.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        If you imagine an idealised planet with a star at an infinite distance, how much of the planet can see it? The answer is half: the star projects a cone that rests on an equatorial line perpendicular to the direction it lies in. Those standing on that equatorial line are looking along the tangent to the curve of the surface of the planet.



        So the basic question is, what is the minimum distance at which this is still possible, or rather, given two opposite points on a circle, where do their tangents intersect? This is effectively squaring the circle that forms said equator, which simplifies down to the square root of 2r^2 (minus the radius of the Earth if you want the height above it).



        In the case of Earth, that comes to 2,639km, however there are other factors regarding the shape of the orbit that might have an effect. Obviously, given an orbit it will not be visible at all times to the whole planet. However, if that orbit is geostationary (e.g. proportional to the rotational speed of the planet) it will only be visible to half the planet when above said height.



        Given orbits are elliptical, it's also possible that it is not above that height the entire orbit. If the orbit resonates with the rotation of the planet and has a low point below said height, this could create dead spots that will never see it in the sky.



        Finally, there's always the possibility of mountain ranges and atmosphere practically limiting visibility along the line of the tangent.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        DanikovDanikov

        45122




        45122




















            Pangolin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Pangolin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Pangolin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Pangolin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147916%2fif-sweden-was-to-magically-float-away-at-what-altitude-would-it-be-visible-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Get product attribute by attribute group code in magento 2get product attribute by product attribute group in magento 2Magento 2 Log Bundle Product Data in List Page?How to get all product attribute of a attribute group of Default attribute set?Magento 2.1 Create a filter in the product grid by new attributeMagento 2 : Get Product Attribute values By GroupMagento 2 How to get all existing values for one attributeMagento 2 get custom attribute of a single product inside a pluginMagento 2.3 How to get all the Multi Source Inventory (MSI) locations collection in custom module?Magento2: how to develop rest API to get new productsGet product attribute by attribute group code ( [attribute_group_code] ) in magento 2

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Magento 2.3: How do i solve this, Not registered handle, on custom form?How can i rewrite TierPrice Block in Magento2magento 2 captcha not rendering if I override layout xmlmain.CRITICAL: Plugin class doesn't existMagento 2 : Problem while adding custom button order view page?Magento 2.2.5: Overriding Admin Controller sales/orderMagento 2.2.5: Add, Update and Delete existing products Custom OptionsMagento 2.3 : File Upload issue in UI Component FormMagento2 Not registered handleHow to configured Form Builder Js in my custom magento 2.3.0 module?Magento 2.3. How to create image upload field in an admin form