[Mindspace (OP)]

I've sat and pondered this and can only conclude that the opposite of centrifugal force would be a mass physically moving, or expanding, toward a static object and pushing it.

If this is so, is the analogy of the Earth moving up to meet a falling object more likely than an invisible gravitational force reaching out and pulling an object to the ground?

I know the Earth expanding in all directions simultaneously is an absurd idea but can't explain why gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. How plausible is it that the Earth is actually flat but has gained so much mass, perhaps from the initial acceleration of the big bang, that it has curved the very space it exists within to such a degree that it has become spherical? Humans all standing on the forward traveling face of a flat rock existing in an intensely curved space? That in a very real sense no matter where on the planet's surface one stood the Earth really did come up to meet you when you jumped into the air...

If only life were so straightforward.

 

[yor_on]

Wow, like your imagination. You will have explain that one some more I think.

As for an accelerating rocket and gravity. What if there is a Higgs field coagulating around 'moving objects'? Then that will be the 'greater degree' of a constant gravitational field.

Like our rocket moving inside a 'invisible Jello' meeting an 'inertal force' acting on all matter in it?

[Geezer]

If this is so, is the analogy of the Earth moving up to meet a falling object more likely than an invisible gravitational force reaching out and pulling an object to the ground?
 

Actually, when you drop an object and the object accelerates towards Earth, the Earth also accelerates towards the object.

Similarly, when a satellite orbits the Earth, the satellite and the object both orbit around a common point which is not the center of mass of the Earth. So, it's as legitimate to say that the earth orbits the satellite as it is to say that the satellite orbits the Earth.