It's a theologically interesting idea. Even if I don't believe in its likelihood, I still find it refreshing that its getting any traction within the scientific community, especially given the most basic of its implications.

ah well, they say it can be tested, so lets see how it actually turns out.

I have an odd feeling Gravity might be both too. Think about it, just in our solar system each planet and the sun have gravity. Think of it as friction of sorts. Spin two balls, think of the air circulating around it as a defensive repulsive force. The air circulating protects the spinning balls to a point. Gravity is similar. It rubs against one another protecting whats contained in the range of gravity. The strong a planet's gravitational force the closer to the sun the planet can be. Of course gravity might be able to be eaten away by stronger gravitational and magnetic forces.

This is my theory anyways.

But its their attraction or repulsion doesn't depend on distance does it?

I'm fairly sure that strong interaction doesn't change from attraction to repulsion depending on distance (because strong interaction remains constant over any distance), electromagnetic force is only repulsive/attractive depending on the charge of the particles. The only one I'm not sure about is weak interaction which I really know almost nothing about.

Your example of the nuclei coming together is explained by the fact that at short distances the attraction from residual nuclear force is more powerful than electromagnetic repulsion, rather than a reversal within a force due to distance.

Edit: @SSJ. The orbit of the planets can be (and has been) explained without having to have a repulsive gravitational force. Its simply centripetal force.

It's a very sound theory, but the bolded part presents a problem. When it comes down to gravity, there is no difference between the planets and the sun, just their mass. Thus given your scenario the Sun would have to lack gravity as well thus the whole hypothetical example falls apart. Though the rest seems interesting.

ok but what keeps the centripetal force constant? There has to be an underlining energy that keeps things running. This is where my theory can be placed. The underlining reason why it doesnt collapse on itself.

Ok so remove that sentence then.

I thought white holes had repulsive gravity (not that they've been seen yet).

The earth's atmosphere is the cause for confusion here.  The reason orbits decay around earth is the rarified atmosphere still causing friction.  Our orbit around the sun encounters significantly less friction and the earth being much more massive than any earthly satellite is signicantly less effected by any such forces. The result is a stable orbit.

As for what keeps the centripetal force constant?  Newton's First Laws of Motion is the answer.  For those who don't remember "An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." is a good summary of it's application here.

In short a massive object in a near perfect vaccuum combined with the concept of centripetal force is sufficient to keep an object already in an elliptical orbit in that elliptical orbit with stability...at least until it is acted upon by another force.

@topic,

It should be interesting to see what comes of this, the article understates a bit our reliance on the homogeneity of space in regards to some of our theories that deal with areas beyond the theorized bubble.  Luckily theories like the Big Bang should be fairly safe from such a revelation as there is no longer a single location that we can say it occured at and the theory is based on information that would be agnostic to such differences.

@SSJ. The planets are moving in space which is very nearly a vacuum. There is almost no friction and as such no need for a driving force, merely conservation of momentum. Though slight orbital decay will happen due to tides as well. Still overall the amount is so small that the sun will explode (or however its meant to die) before the Earth falls into it.

@ssj12&ManusJustus: To me it sounds like you could join here:
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l2
Sorry guys, but that was the first thing that popped into my mind.

@Fayceless: I take that as you were meaning that the matter is distributed fairly evenly "at the background"?

@Topic: Sounds somewhat interesting. I have to check this out when i have the time. Although, i'd still stick with dark energy and dark matter.
Or does this relate to the "empty spot" in the background radiation they "found" because of the error in the data they measured.