Gravity doesn't care about mathematics. It works perfectly well without it. Newton and Einstein developed mathematical equations to describe what gravity does. Neither of them describes what gravity is, or where it comes from, what causes it.

The LaPlacian model of gravitation does describe what gravity is, and where it comes from, what causes it, as well as what it does.

Gravity is a push, from outside. Imagine gravity as a wind from the stars that is so strong and so nearly constant, that it keeps pressing you towards the Earth. That is the model developed by La Sage, improved by the Marquie de LaPlace, then by Nikola Tesla, then by Dr. T. J. J. See, and then rediscovered by me. It is the correct description.

There are indirect interactions between gravitation and magnetism. There are direct interactions between gravitation and electricity. (Gravitation can be temporarily locally vanished by applications of very fast, positive-going electrostatic field discharges, exceeding 400,000 statvolts, to the object. That happens because such discharges result in out-bound aether fluxes which intersect with, and effectively block, the incoming gravitational aether stream, because the local aether pressure, out-bound, is stronger than the local gravitational aether pressure, which is in-bound. This was first demonstrated by Piggot in France in July 1920. Piggot was able to suspend 1/2 inch diameter solid silver balls, and other materials, in the space between an electrostatically charged sphere, and a concave ground plate, when his generator was charged at 500,000 statvolts. Were this simply an electrical phenomenon, then the mere presence of the grounded plate would have instantly destroyed the effect. Interestingly, when the power was turned off, the objects were observed to remain suspended for quite some time.)

Gravitation is not at all an attraction, but a pressure, a pushing inward. In aether physics, the in-streaming gas which results in the pushing inward force we call gravity, has been captured in a circulating motion in the situation we call a magnetic field, rather resembling a whirlpool in water, in a way.

It is commonly understood that the central problem of "Relativity" deals with whether or not people who view a given event, from different locations, will agree on exactly when, and where, the given event happened.

The Galilean Relativity hypothesis is thus typically stated:

"Any two observers moving with constant speed and direction, with respect to one another, will obtain the same results for all experiments."

Black holes are fictions. No black hole has ever been directly observed. Many astronomical phenomena have been interpreted as implying that such activity would imply the presence of a black hole. Black hole theory is derived primarily from Relativity Theory, which is flawed. Conservation of energy is violated by both General Relativity (GR) and Special Relativity (SR), as has been experimentally demonstrated.

Gravitation is not fictional, but it is most certainly not due to any "curvature of space". I prefer the model developed by LaPlace in the 1850s, which has gravitation being caused by a constant influx of subquantum particles, each of which has an intrinsic velocity millions of times faster than the speed of light. I prefer this model because I discovered the same kind of model, independently, over the course of 7 years of research. I only recently found the gravitational model developed by LaPlace in a physics text by E. T. Whittaker. I think the LaPlacian Gravitation model is perfectly correct, because it agrees with my model, and because it accounts for everything properly. And energy is conserved in LaPlace's model, something which can not be said for relativity theory.

And by the way, if one holds LaPlace's model as true, then it turns out that Galileo's original version of relativity is the correct model.