So now you're forgetting that the planets are much smaller in FET than they are in RET. Do you think that the mere specks that Jupiter's moons represent are affected enough by your RE theory of gravity that this would make any kind of difference? Also, it must be noted that according to conventional FET, we have never observed any body the size of the Earth except for the Earth. So yeah, it's a blind assumption that such a body should be pulled into a sphere.
You shouldn't assume that I've forgotten anything. I've been here long enough to both know the different consequences that result in observation if the earth is plane and to know the skeptic tactics that FE'rs like to use with their typical responses that usually contain a question to answer a question.
You seem to use the term assumption loosely. Here is a definition:
as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SHən
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
You gave your improper use of the word even more resonance by supplying the adjective "blind". A blind assumption would be something that is blindly accepted as true, without proof.
You should know that there are 1000's of empirical truths that lend credence to idea of this planet being a sphere. A reasonable man with an appetite for understanding celestial objects might want to learn its details by making hypotheses based on observations intertwined with mathematical affirmations. When those two are used to together a striking thing happens and the ability to predict their motions give more credit to hypotheses and they move up the chain in the scientific method.
This is the realm of scientific realism which entails that the claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory, the entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently and that there are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says.
Do you not agree that a man that uses this method can make at least some partial claim to knowledge by going through all this effort? It certainly couldn't be a coincidence that science is such a success.
On the other hand, skepticism is something else. I am a skeptic but my fence sitting is an introductory space that I occupy until I observe and/or verify reliable information. When you aren't able to do that last part I consider you to be a denialist.
Denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. If some part or parts of the empirical observations are giving you information that lead syllogistically toward a conclusion using plainly true premises and there isn't an alternative explanation that also stands up to the same scrutiny of the premises then you are exhibiting denialism.
I will syllogistically give you all the premises that should lead you to think that mass is a shape making property and also do the same to show you why there is no sufficient reason to think that a body with enough mass to sustain hydrostatic equilibrium should make a plane if you'd like. After you can defend your denialist behavior.