Rising higher and higher above any size of ball, shows more of the surface lower and lower from you.
Yes, just like what we observe in reality.
Where as you get higher, you can see more of the surface, and the angle of dip to the horizon is lower:

At a thousand miles up, it’s not possible for Earth to be a ball.
Why?
Do you have a photo from a thousand miles up?
Suggesting it’s slightly lower at 40000 feet up, means the surface seen at a thousand miles away
No, it is meaning anything like that because you can't see that far.
As a reminder, the world record distance photo taken from Earth's surface is 483.5 km away or 300 miles.
That is not 1000 miles.
Going
You keep appealing to this magical thousand miles view, yet you refuse to provide any evidence of it.
You are blatantly lying to everyone while ignoring the clear evidence of the horizon getting lower as you get higher.
If Earth were a ball, we’d see a far lower view over a thousand miles on it
So go get that view, and show us what it looks like.
Stop appealing to your dishonest BS.
And again, stop just appealing to vague BS. Do the math and see how low it should actually appear.
As a reminder, I already did that for you and showed that for an observer in a plane at cruising altitude it would be roughly 3 degrees below.
They never show a view from above a ball, as you’d see it from there.
You mean you have never bothered looking for them, nor did you attempt to make them yourself.
That is because you have no interest in the truth and are just looking for a pathetic to dismiss reality.
The largest ball is no different from any other ball.
But you do need to understand what that means in terms of height.
Standing 1 m above the surface of a very large ball is quite different to standing 1 m above the surface of a tiny ball.
The more seen of the surface, is not higher up at all, than on the surface itself.
Which matches what is observed in reality. Something you keep on ignoring. I wonder why? Is it because you know it shows you are a lying POS?
That’s not what we see, Earth is much too small a ball to see it nearly as flat over a thousand or more miles surface.
Again, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS MAGICAL VIEW?
We can see a thousand miles over that ball. Or two thousand miles over it.
WHERE?
Stop just appealing to your delusional fantasy and provide evidence of these magical views.
If we see the surface still rising up ‘but slightly lower’ than at only three miles over that surface, it wouldn’t look slightly lower at 200 x more distance than three miles over it. When your curve over three miles is seen, that’s the reference point for the whole surface of the ball Earth.
Then you say that a larger curve over a far greater distance hardly curves over 100x more distance over the ball Earth surface!
Again, have you done the math to check?
The horizon, for an eye altitude of h, is at an angle of dip (i.e. an angle below directly horizontal) given by acos(r/(r+h)).
This is not difficult to understand.
This is not difficult to calculate.
If instead you want it in terms of distance seen on the surface, that would be (in radians) d/r.
To convert that to an angle in degrees, multiply by 180 and divide by pi.
And if you want to know the height needed, that is also calculable.
For a distance of 5 km, that gives an angle of 0.045 degrees and an observer height of 2 m.
For a distance of 500 km, that gives an angle of dip of roughly 4.5 degrees, and an observer height of 20 km.
For a distance of 1600 km (your 1000 miles) that gives a dip of roughly 14 degrees and an observer height of 200 km.
Again, this is not difficult to do.
Yet doing so would reveal your dishonesty.
So you believe every ball, every size of ball, has horizons on them?
Yes. As all the evidence shows.
Horizons only form on balls, curved down spots on balls?
No, horizon form on any object which is curving away.
For example, on a cube, the horizon is the edges, where it curves away.
Show me
No. First you can answer the simple questions you keep ignoring.
When we look at a horizon from its side view
Do you mean just seeing a point of the horizon? Or do you mean a line along the surface going from the observer to the horizon?
If the former, you see a point, so that is pointless.
If the latter, you never do that, unless you get incredibly far away.
When you do that for Earth, you get a view like this:
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2024/10/25/png/epic_1b_20241025021514.pngAgain, this has been explained to you repeatedly.
You were even provided a diagram showing why you are just spouting pure BS:

The purple circle represents the horizon for the first viewer.
The grey line is the line going from them to the horizon and beyond. That is the line you would look at to see that curve showing the horizon going down.
The blue circle is the horizon for the second observer.
They just see a point on the grey line.
The rest is blocked from view by the horizon.
Everyone can easily see your claim is pure BS, yet you keep playing dumb and keep repeating it.
Real curves are seen
And the way they are seen is by curving away from us, producing a horizon.
Meanwhile, real flat surface are seen as the entire surface. With no part of the surface magically blocked from view by a magical horizon.
The Earth matches a curved surface, not a flat one.
Again, EVERYTHING that says one way or another says you are wrong.
Basic geometry says you are wrong.
Math says you are wrong.
Observations from reality, including simple tests you can conduct yourself, says you are wrong.
Even your own argument effectively says you are wrong.
But you refuse to admit it because you are desperate to pretend Earth is flat.
Now again, how about you stop with the pathetic BS and either show this magical thousand mile view, or answer the simple questions you have continually avoided because you know they show you have been spouting pure BS:
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?
Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?