But I already knew my "theory" was bogus. If it were right, the sun should have swallowed the earth a long time ago, which is obviously not the case. That is not to say the idea can't work with some adjustments, but that is beside the point - any idea, no matter how preposterous, can work with adjustments.
I took your idea seriously because there is something in it that rings true.
However, the reason I'm intrigued by the inflating-balloon view of gravity is that it is, at least as far as I can tell, totally analogous with Einstein's accelerated-elevator experiment. Einstein formulated the hypothesis that gravitational mass is the same thing as inertial mass, but even though the hypothesis has been confirmed by experiment, there is no logical basis for it. If gravitational mass is simply "resistance to acceleration", does that mean all objects resting on the surface of the earth are being accelerated a G right now? How?
The expansion suggests movement, different movement in each part of the object.
How about this?
If the fabric of space was constantly flowing toward a mass particle in one wave form carrying objects toward the mass with it while the reflected energy wave being emitted is in another form which does not have the acceleration affect. Something like a constant expansion could be experienced.
An inflating earth seems to provide the logic, but it also creates difficulties, as you pointed out. But I can't think of anything else except, perhaps, that gravitational mass is NOT the same as inertial mass. Do you think that is possible?
Inertia is the gravitational attraction of a mass to its previous locationís decaying gravitational field.
While gravity is the attraction of one mass to another mass.
They are close to being the same properties however an objects attraction to itself may have some special properties due to the identical nature of the objects of attraction.