Thank You Lawrence Krauss

You've probably heard someone say that gravity is the curvature of space-time, or that gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time. This is something I can't warp (I mean wrap) my head around. Can you? If you can, please don't say it's on account of the trusty model that's often called upon to explain the mind bending concept. This model has bugged me for quite a while now. It seems intuitive enough at first, until you realize that a model that's being used to explain how gravity is the curvature of space-time, is itself already relying on gravity without explaining how it got there. Here's an image, typical of the the image we're asked to contemplate:

Now, if something is counterintuitive, that doesn't mean it's not true. If a particular way of viewing the universe rewards us with awesome predictive power, we should probably assume, with Hilary Putnam, that there's probably "something right about it." But this model is used to explain a complex concept to laypeople like me. So I, the layperson, can only respond, how is the ball bending space-time? Why is it attracted to the lowest possible space? More to the point, how does the image make this counterintuitive proposition more intelligible to a layperson like me, if not by relying on my intuitive grasp of gravity in the first place!? Some may reply that this is merely a visual metaphor of sorts, and as such, is imperfect. My partial reply is that I agree that it's imperfect. But I also want to protest that if the proposition "the curvature of space-time=gravity" is made no more intuitive by the image, without already relying on our intuitive grasp of the concept of gravity, then what good is the image? The theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, in this article, calls this particular visual metaphor "a scam." What a relief! Thanks to George Johnson for relaying this article and its contents (near the end of this clip) in his discussion with John Horgan on Bloggingheads: