Oh yeah, well his comment was also sarcastic, dumbass. Maybe get out a dictionary flip the pages until your well past the S section, then start back tracking until somehow you’re all the way back to the Fs, then find your way finally to the S section again and lookup the basic bitch word that is spelled ‘sarcasm’.

This comment and all others in this thread are also sarcasm btw. /ns

To be pedantic: It’s not necessarily an equal amount of mass, it just has to accelerate (this includes deceleration which is acceleration opposing a component of a vector of travel) any amount of mass along and opposite to the vector of the plane’s acceleration due to gravity so long as the amount of mass (and the averaged amount of that mass’ acceleration in the aforementioned direction i.e. force) is in ratio with the planes mass and it’s acceleration due to gravity.

There’s a lot of other pedantic caveats but they’d make this comment far too long. The main thing I want to convey is that mass doesn’t necessarily matter but rather force (m*v) and also that the “suction” and thereby acceleration that a plane’s airfoil experiences is also it causing an acceleration on the air around it by decelerating it along the path that it wants to flow. It all depends on frame of reference.

I suck at explaining things, this video might do a better job at getting the idea across.

If the application of an idea is both in-line with its definition and shown to be inconsistent in foundation or correctness then the idea is either wrong, not sufficiently defined, or both. In lieu of a redefinition, it can be presumed wrong.

These are the natural shocks that test hypothesis and theory.