Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
You really do not understand the scientific method.
Part of it involves looking at what proves hypothesis or theory wrong and it is reviewed by others.
In the case for the Earth being a sphere it is just not a handful observations and experiments that are blindly excepted and never reviewed or validated. It is 2,300+ years of continually being verified by others by different observations and reproducible experiments.
The ability to make predictions that are accurate are a validation that supports mainstream science is on the right track. Tides and when and where eclipses will be visible for example.
Here is an example of the FES version of the zetetic method in practice:
Bishop Experiment offered as conclusive proof and experimental evidence depending which wiki you look at.
Distance stated is 10 miles off.
The location the observer states they were with a telescope 20" above the water is a rocky shore with a steep drop off. Making it highly questionable that the observer height was 20" above the water.
The mistake with the distance was acknowledged, yet it remains on the wiki with no link to an addendum or at least the distances and calculations removed allowing the reader to make their own judgement.
Something like this using the scientific method would have been peered reviewed, the mistakes found, tested by others to verify the results, and would not have been ever been called conclusive proof.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.0https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4497.0The above is the only things I could find on the wiki so far I was able to look into and verify myself. So the three things I found was an experiment with the wrong distances given, a link to something that could be misleading if the reader does not understand the methodology used, and the court ruling stated in the wiki not being what the court transcripts say the ruling was.