The main problem with this analogy is that the thing it&#x27;s trying to explain (gravity) is tangled into the analogy (balls bend the sheet because of gravity) so it doesn&#x27;t provide an independent viewpoint. On first encounter this analogy seems to lead to great enlightenment but a bit of thought reveals that it doesn&#x27;t really explain anything, even in simplified terms.<p>It&#x27;s not hard to summarize the basic tenants of GR, here is a very good attempt: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.stackexchange.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;3018&#x2F;852" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.stackexchange.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;3018&#x2F;852</a>. For a layperson I would focus on (1), what a geodesic means (what&#x27;s the shortest way to travel from NYC to London, etc.). Then I would move to (2) and say that we don&#x27;t know why that is the case. This would be a nice segue into a discussion about how Physics just <i>describes</i> observed phenomena with equations and the explanations are iterative.