I think I know which article inspired you to post this OP:
https://archive.is/ebdwR
The first link is from the internet archive, thus not paywalled, the second one is the original, perhaps not free for all. It is different from the article linked by Cheesesteak in post #31
I’m bothered by the common denigration of the bowling ball analogy. Its purpose to give a visual image of how mass distorts and curves spacetime. It’s not intended to be a technical explanation of gravity, merely a way to simply express the notion that because of distortion to spacetime things fall toward the source of mass and need added energy to get up the hill and escape. The more mass, the higher the hill.
People are familiar with sliding easily down hills and working hard to climb back up. (The new winter olympic inclusion of “skimo” makes this into a competitive sport that is more instantly understood than ice dancing scoring.)
I haven’t seen any simple analogy replace this one. It has its faults, but all simple analogies do. Their attraction and usefulness lies precisely in their simplicity. Add complications and the effect is ruined.
Actually, I was unaware of this article.