This is something that many scientists have struggled with and revisited over theri scientific careers. Einstein also wrestled with "the aether" and dismissed it, but it hasn't stopped there. We should never ignore that Newton attributed the force of gravity as being imparted by God or the Holy Spirit.
Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton’s Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton’s young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it’s easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton’s law.
Since the force of gravity depends strictly on the mass of an object (not on its apparent size), Fatio postulated that material objects are almost entirely transparent to the gravific corpuscles. At the time, this was a radical suggestion, but Fatio argued for its plausibility by noting that corpuscles of light can pass through solid glass, even though glass is as seemingly dense and impermeable as other solids. Fatio also noted that the lack of appreciable drag on moving objects could be explained by postulating a sufficiently high speed for the corpuscles. He also explained that the gravific corpuscles must be slowed by their interactions with ordinary matter in order to transfer the necessary momentum. Fatio continued to refine and promote his theory throughout the rest of his life, even after enlisting with the exiled Camisards, a insurrectionist sect of Huguenots from the south of France.
It’s an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage “explanation” of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton’s ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical (material) cause. It’s true that he explicitly denied (in a famous letter to Bentley) the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected (in a letter to Leibniz) the notion that space is filled with some material substance (a la Descartes) that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause. Of course, he gave consideration to various possible material mechanisms, and even included some Queries in the latter editions of Opticks, speculating on the possibility of an ether that is least dense near matter, and whose density increases the further we recede from matter. This could be interpreted as a somewhat obscure reference to Fatio’s theory, since the flux of gravific corpuscles is reduced in the vicinity of matter, due to the shadowing effect. And yet David Gregory reported that, behind Fatio’s back, Newton laughed at his method of explaining gravity, and Newton scrupulously avoided mentioning any such explanations in his cherished Principia – aside from making it clear that his conception of gravity did not assume any particular mechanism, nor even whether gravity was due to an inherent pull between matter or was caused by some kind of impulsion. Indeed Fatio was unhappy that Newton never publicly acknowledged, let alone endorsed, his theory. He wrote to Conduitt in 1730
"I have often wondered how the second and third Edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles do touch so lightly upon this matter. For if there be a mechanical cause of gravity – as it is most probable – there is also a demonstration that there can be no cause of it than that which I give, and Dr. I. knew it very well."
Apparently Fatio didn’t appreciate how anathema his “explanation of gravity” was to Newton’s fundamental doctrine, which was to eschew occult (i.e., hidden) causes for manifest phenomena. Even setting outside the outlandishness of the explanation, Newton was never able to extract from Fatio’s idea any testable consequence that could support it, so the idea remained an occult mechanism which, according to Newton, is not the proper purview of science.
The way this all settles in states that Newton's concept of a process neutral to religion, favors a fairy tale as gravity's cause rather than a sound scientific one. If we delve further into the idea that gravity is mechanical, rather than "Holy Spirit," we can find mistakes, nonetheless, a scientific principle that might be refined and may be the correct concept.
Perhaps black holes do not jive with loops of force that reach a mighty hand upward to pull us down by the seat of our pants, because even singularities are subject to Occam's Razor, thus the path of least resistance. If not, then the razor is feable at best, but crippled at worst.
What I find fascinating at times, is that a concept such as mechanical gravity arises when examining issues such as propulsion. I first encountered it when looking at the "glue" holding stars together. At the moment of fusion, gravitational force reverses because it is is overwhelmed by the atomic forces designed to do exactly that at millions of degrees C., unless, perhaps, a graviton is collectively a force stronger than electromagnetism. We know that is not true.
On the other hand, a particle with inifnite range, such as the graviton, especially as an inbound stream, would be unaffected by such high heat and the force it generates because the infinite range, requiring the potentially inifite velocity, is a jugernaut compared to the force of a single boson, or even a domino-train-like string of bosons, because the boson is finite opposed to the collective string of gravitons, approaching infinite velocity. One needs to remember that a star, even though vast compared to us or a single atomic particle, is but a speck compared to the force available to an infinite universe, both material and potentially material.