I am not sure exactly how far one could see through the atmosplane, but I doubt it is anywhere close to 130,000 km. Moisture, dust, pressure differences, pollution, etc. would keep light from traveling that distance.
Also, there is no evidence that the sun's light would make it that far, much less bounce back to your eye. After all, the known world is not all lit up at once.
Finally, if by some magical chance, you could see 130,000 km through the atmosplane, how would you know how far you are seeing?
This seems a bit pedantic.
First, the original question was about whether going into orbit and seeing a round Earth would convince you it was round. When you insinuated that it wouldn't convince you, but may merely make you consider the possibility that it might not be flat, he then simply said if he went up there and saw it not being round, but simply stretching out in every direction it would certainly all but convince him that what he thought was wrong, and asked what would prevent you from accepting what you were seeing (a question in the question forum) if you saw it as round. You seem to be trying to debate the validity of his hypothetical situation by assuming he is seeing into infinity, that his numbers are exact, rather than simple examples, etc., etc.
Second, since you brought it up; if he is in orbit in a rocket in the hypothetical situation, why should he be looking through the atmolayer since he is above it? He would be looking down at the atmolayer. Even if he was unable to make out ground features, he should be able to see the top of the atmolayer illuminated by the Sun, even if the light isn't reaching the surface of the Earth beyond a certain distance from him. Also, you say you aren't even certain how far you would be able to see through the atmolayer, and only that you doubt he could see that far. Instead of answering his question you are saying his hypothetical situation is somehow invalid because of a some characteristic of the atmolayer that you don't even claim to fully understand.
Considering you accused CET of turning this into a debate thread, rather than a Q&A thread, you seem stubbornly unwilling to answer a single question, despite many that have been put to you. You either debate the validity of the question (despite it be ing a hypothetical) or simply say something like "you tell me".
This thread is going nowhere fast.