I will go ahead and not provide a final answer to your question; I just take it ahead a bit, so that others will have a clearer image of what you are asking, and maybe then they can help out with the final answer.
Update:
Simplified answer
Your system can be modelled with a series of small cubes (like sugar cubes, or dice) aligned neatly in a row, glued to the center-line of the curved surface of a toilet paper roll.
Even when aligned with each other, each of the cubes will stand at a different angle (their bases aligning tangential to the curve of the roll). Thus, they will not share the same linear perspective system among each other. If you want to make a drawing of this scene, you will need to establish separate, dedicated perspective systems (with corresponding "horizons" and vanishing points) for each small cube.
Original, elaborate answer:
By the first sentence in your question, I imagine you could be a fantasy or sci-fi artist.
You might want to paint a picture that depicts a series of stout pillars, or even "skyscrapers", that are 100km tall, and are spaced 200km apart (at their base) from each other. On a clear day (or if you rise above the Stratosphere (where the hazy part of our atmosphere lives)) you will get to see several of them as they file their way beyond your horizon, and gradually disappear behind it.
(Just to emphasize: 100km altitude is also the "Kármán line", the defined altitude where space "officially" starts. These imaginary skyscrapers are so tall.)
We need to talk about two kinds of horizons here.
One is your horizon, in other words, where it appears to be, from your vantage point: the very line where the surface of the Earth and the sky meets. (Officially it's called the apparent / true horizon (see illustration).)
The other kind of horizon is a "theoretical", or relative one. It's a bit like the yellow line that you drew in your picture. It's not where you see the horizon. It's where a selected object seems to project its "own horizon". It's "where it should be", if the surface would go on flatly into an infinite distance. (I think this is labelled as astronomical horizon in this illustration.)
It's time to address how you tried to use two neighboring objects to find a horizon. On the scale of our mega-towers example, you can't rely on a system where some towers are grouped together. At this scale, Earth's curvature is significant enough to make each tower stand at a different (unique) angle on the curving surface: the deviation between each of them is so significant, that we need to maintain an own dedicated perspective system for each of the towers.
(Having to assign dedicated perspective systems to several objects in a single image can happen as easily as drawing an office interior, with a desk and a chair, neither of which latter ones are aligned parallel to the walls, nor with each other. Now the office room, the chair, and the desk have their own perspective systems, three in total, each of which you have to depict correctly, if you want a good drawing.) (But, unlike with our mega towers example, in this office interior, the different perspective systems still share the same horizon.)
You can position yourself such way that you can match your "personal horizon" with one of the towers'.
You need to take a helicopter, or an airplane, or a space elevator.
Using the website called Distance to the Horizon Calculator, we can see that if you rise 2km above the Earth's surface, then a tower 160km away from you will stand right on your perceived horizon, while in its own dedicated perspective system, its horizon (yellow line) will overlap with your perceived one. And these overlapping horizons will cross the building at its ground floor; you will still get a frog's perspective if you look upwards to the upper floors.
You could now choose to ascend to half the height of the tower, to an altitude of 50km (while keeping your 160km distance). Then the tower's dedicated theoretical horizon would "cut" it in half, in its middle. But now, the tower's dedicated horizon and the Earth's horizon would not overlap any more. Earth's horizon would get a bit below, as it rolls away, downwards (due to the curvature). Just like the difference in your image.
In this system, each tower's own horizon (yellow line) ends up in a different "height".
- The "yellow line" of towers that are closer to you as the above calculated "(Earth's) horizon distance", are above your perceived horizon.
- The "yellow line" of a tower that stands exactly at the horizon distance from you, falls at the same height with your perceived horizon.
- And the "yellow line" of towers that stand farther away from you than the horizon distance, will end up below your perceived horizon. (You will see these far away towers (but not their bases, as they are already covered by the perceived horizon) from below a frog's perspective.)
It's worth pointing out that anybody who is not considering the Earth's curvature, will use the closest tower's dedicated horizon as reference where they set the perceived one, and they will go ahead and match every other object's horizon with this same reference.