Firstly, your diagram was from the view point of someone in orbit over 1000km above the earth's surface, way beyond what you claim is the limit of the 'dome' so hardly a reasonable comparison. The earth's radius is around 6371km and any comparisons need to take that into account. If you want to mock the globe model then you need to deal with the actual globe model, not a strawman model of your own making.
Secondly, your diagram ignores the effect of perspective when dealing with large distances. In the flat earth model the horizon is effectively at infinity where everything converges to the vanishing point. In your diagram you are looking down at the ground, not looking out at the horizon where the sky and the ground/water meet. It is completely wrong.
So I did the math for the three elevations in the video with the water level in post #479
- At sea level, with an elevation of 1.8m the horizon is at 4.8km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.043°
- From Malibu, with an elevation of 365.76m the horizon is at 68.5km and the drop from eye level to the horizon is 0.615°
- From Mt Wilson, with an elevation of 1708.6m the horizon is at 147.6km and the drop from eye level is 1.327°
- From the ISS, with an elevation of 400km, the horizon is at 2294km and the drop from eye level is 19.793°
Calculations are basic trigonometry using the values above. Angle of drop from eye level is the same as the angle between the two radii, since eye level is perpendicular to the viewpoint radius.
One of the 'problems' I think a lot of people have, is that diagrams and pictures can only demonstrate the principles, but of necessity can never be to scale. You have to use calculations to work things out.
For example, if you were to draw a circle representing the earth, and were to draw it as large as possible on an HD display, the diameter would be, lets say, 1050 pixels. This would represent 12,742km diameter, which means 1 pixel per 12.7km. Mount Everest drawn to scale on this circle would be less than 1 pixel in height, i.e. within the anti-aliasing. You would not be able to see it.
Or drawing the line of sight to the horizon, 4.8km for a height of 1.8m. For a line using most of the width of an HD display, say 1900 pixels, your observation hight would be 0.7 pixel, so probably not even show up. To get a 1 pixel observation high, you would need 4m actual hight, increasing the distance to the horizon to 7139m (so, 3.75m/pixel).
And this is why the horizon will look like it is straight ahead. Even a massive 1° drop will not be noticeable. At a 4m height, the horizon will be 0.091° below horizontal. If you think you could detect this difference, think again. That is like looking at someone standing 10m away, and being able to tell if they are the same height as you, or 1.6mm shorter (with nothing near to compare, or line up against), just by whether you are looking straight ahead into their eyes, or looking down slightly.
Prodomos' and my explanations not account for any effects of refraction, which can slightly change how far you can see, when looking across water (or a desert) from a low height.
All the numerous YouTube videos with (badly conducted) experiments that 'prove' the earth is flat because you see further than predicted across a lake or similar body of water actually demonstrate that the earth is round. When you climb up a cliff, you can see further. On a flat earth, you you not see any further at 100m up than at 10m up.
And as far as Christian theology is concerned: God created the heavens and the earth.
Ps 19: 1
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Rom 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Science is the study of God's creation (which I think Jipsah already said), whether of not people recognise the Creator. The heavens declare the glory of God, not the lies of Satan.