Why is this no longer accepted as the 'cause' of gravity?
Because . . . it Depends on your desired microscope power, how many decimal points you are interested in.
(add ten to twenty decimal places of accuracy for each newer theory, and lots more aspects, behaviours etc)
Newtonian physics describes one, and only one aspect (feature/ability) of gravity, that it sucks. That the apple drops at all is all the accuracy you were interested in. (but you get another 20 anyway, for free)
In Relativistic physics, the space time continuum was created by the big bang (and gravity/time/space are so intertwined as to be inseperable. gravity is not a distortion of the fabric of space/time, but defines it. (remember the sheet of stretched rubber with one cluster of heavy ball bearings in the middle? big bang = moving all the ball bearings apart, you can now see space time in a 2D representation. gravity would = the topology of the rubber sheet).(don't be confused by einstein himself calling inertial gravity indistinguishable from mass gravity (that was just for a single starting point in an argument, nothing more) - they are obviousy different when viewed on the rubber sheet)
In string theory, or derivatives, an entity called Mr. Gravity (or graviton of you prefer) says listen up, and you will believe the information that I am constantly spouting. (resonance occured. think of a cloud made up not of water, but of tiny shimmering pieces of string. Mr. Gravity (Esq.), was able to get all the other pieces of string to believe him, AND start transmiting (shimmering, vibrating at a certain frequency, whatever) the same information themselves, for reasons unknown.)
In a multi-verse (a path through an infinity of infinities (now routinely used by universities and their quantum computers) you would ask, can a NEW! invention/idea called "gravity" increase entropy (order) WHILE at the SAME TIME either increasing energy, or at the bare minimum, not destroying any? (totally outside of all standard entropy definitions except the most modern)(remember "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is newtonian. look at your finger. matter has obviously been created, and is now routinely created (admitedly as self anihilating twined particle pairs) in the particle accelerator, protons do have a measurable decay (they simply collapse into nothingness), and are also created spontaneously out of vacuum at a very slow rate.)
well lets call it permitted in the narrow path then (an entropy/energy equivalence equation that is within the bounds of foreverness, (an infinity of universal ages (from big bang to big ?, say 100 billion years)(most classical entropy definitions are newtonian, to go multiversial you have to start thinking about principles and physics laws that are sustainable over essentially infinite repeated universal ages. un-surprisingly, you come out with constants that match exactly what we've got now.)
(
mapping problems and incompleteness theory.
1+1 = 2 has never been true in the real world.
if i sold you one large delicious orange and one small, green, bitter, inedible orange, would you come back to my shop? despite my being the worlds foremost mathematical shop keeper? and being able to "prove" that I sold you two oranges?
ALL maths assumptions break down near boundaries. ie newtonian physics is good for everyday life, but when you need more power, more accuracy, you have to go relativistic, which is only good up till the next boundary, (relativistic quantum field theory only works when you pretend gravity doesn't exist), then you need to go string, then multiversial. each is nothing more than a telescope that gives you more decimal places. (and each has astounding philosophical implications.)
all logics are incomplete, and worse, inconsistent (any system of logic can be used to create a paradox, ie to prove that it has mathematical inconsistencies.)
)
personaly,
I'm "Dropping science, like Gallileo dropped the orange" - "Beastie Boys"