You're not giving the above comment the respect it deserves.
Whenever you offer up an analogy, you want to choose it carefully, and be sure to convey its limitations. The video didn't discuss its limitations (which is OK, it's just a video showing off a rig). So we're left to do it here. And trust me, learning GR with Kip Thorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne) makes the above commenter qualified to offer an opinion.
>Whenever you offer up an analogy, you want to choose it carefully, and be sure to convey its limitations.
Yes, maybe if you're presenting at a conference or a lecture or something like that. Not if you want to get a bunch of kids motivated/interested in a topic. In the case of this video, the limitations can only be understood by people in that field. Sure, You can hand-wave a general clarification like "this isn't actually how it is, because <insert boring text that nobody will remember>" - which would be pointless (IMO) and convey no real information. Because the "real" information takes several years of academic training to understand and comprehend.
Sorry but it changes nothing in my mind. If the OP had said "Hey I would have said it this way and guess what I've successfully used it to motivate X, Y and Z into taking up science" - I'd have been way more impressed and given the "above comment the respect it deserves".
Whenever you offer up an analogy, you want to choose it carefully, and be sure to convey its limitations. The video didn't discuss its limitations (which is OK, it's just a video showing off a rig). So we're left to do it here. And trust me, learning GR with Kip Thorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne) makes the above commenter qualified to offer an opinion.