Whenever "Gravity" is discussed as a force, there seems to be forgotten the first law of forces that we supposedly learned in elementary physics. "Every force is opposed by an equal and opposite force." The latest example of this seems to be the postulation of something called "gravitons" which carry the "gravitational force." This would seem to be in direct contradiction to the idea that "Every force has its equal and opposite..."
One may suggest that we really have no idea "how gravity actually works." We feel the effect of something, but we really have no idea what it is. We do not actually know that the greater mass is pulling the smaller one in. Weird as it may seem, an argument could be made for exactly the opposite. One can argue that what we know as mass represents a deficiency f some unknown unit which pervades the universe, between the two units, allowing external pressures to push the units together...
Every time this writer sees a new fundamental particle used to explain an unknown, he tends to shudder. Where is the old adage that "The simplest explanation is the best?" We smash atoms together at high energies and consider the results as "fundamental particles" that were contained within the atoms. It would seem that a more rational interpretation whould be that these are alternate states of matter that can be formed under such high energy conditions. We posit tinier and tinier units such as "Quarks," who apparently were named after a kind of German cheese full of holes and whose original write up sounds like a "send up" on the tendency to make things more and more complicated. We simply seem unable to admit that we don't really have any inkling of what we are talking about in much of science. Therefore, we invent another particle to answer our question.
Apparently we humans have to invent an answer when we do not have one. The standard answer to the mystery of existence is, "God/Allah/Azura Mazda did it." In science we invent string theories, space/time, gravitons, Quarks, etc., etc.
How gravity really works? We don't really have a clue...
Post Scrlpt: The comment above, "We don't really have a clue." appears to be already outdated, almost as soon as it was written, Advances in thinking which is somewhat along the lines of the alternative explanation for gravity which is presented above appear to give an explanation for "Gravity." That is, the alternative idea that "Gravitation is an Observational Phenomenon which appears to be an Attractive Force, but is sctually the result of another interaction, " may well be correct.
If it be be postulated that all of existence be within a "Substance" which automatically will attempt to equilibrate motion throughout, then Gravitation becomes one of the observations of differential pressures within the "Substance." This view is called, "The Oscillator/Substance Model" which postulates that all of existence is within a "substance," which is organized into (or by) oscillators. This view turns out to explain and correlate phenomena which are otherwise mysterious and/or appear to be unconnected, including Gravitation.