Talk:3146: Fantastic Four

And everyone wonders why that Franklin Richards kid is a little off... 2601:8C3:8682:1FC0:9DB2:6777:1660:1D9C 20:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Could be worse. In Star Trek, the kid would be born 2 centuries in the past. Barmar (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Spoilers, Randall, spoilers...I'm sure there are other people who missed the theatrical release and are waiting for it to hit Disney+... 128.4.149.3 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It's probably fine, the movie came out... two months ago.

Holy shit it only came out two months ago. Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is how I learnt there was a new Fantastic Four movie 64.114.211.124 23:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I had already heard of the movie, but only after it had been released. Whatever advertising they'd used had bypassed me... I only saw the 'poster' for it when someone who had already watched it included the image in a review. And, by my own (probably wrong) count, this is the fifth live-action FF film, anyway (one of them was made but never released, for... reasons) and I've only actually seen two of the prior ones. (Couldn't say for sure which plot-points belong to which. Was the one where Johnny Storm had a 'pre-powers-kicking-in' skiing accident different from the one with the dimensional travel thing? ...I think so, but then which order were they?).

It seems that cinema releases are these days probably considered loss-leaders (and 'Oscars-qualifying') to justify subsequent online-platforming sales. I was lucky enough to have a fairly local cinema play The Thursday Murder Club, given that I don't have access to Netflix (or Disney+, or Paramount+, or all the rest that might be necessary to view all the various different franchises of possible interest) and am stubbornly unlikely to succumb anytime soon.

As to spoilers, I'll have probably forgotten/disregarded this comic by the time I get to see this one. By which time there'll be an even newer re-re-reboot FF film, anyway (probably photorealistically generated with AI 'actors', and piped straight into subscribers' brains!), if not several more. 82.132.244.45 02:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Brings to mind the 1999 IgNobel Prize winner (in Managed Health Care), US Patent #3216423 ("Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force"), <https://patents.google.com/patent/US3216423A/en> 2601:189:8501:71a0:2ce2:fc8d:e6ee:d0f (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

That's one crazy patent. Is that a net to catch the baby? Also this: "In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the pregnancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement." Mtcv (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

After I read the problem statement, I feared that they would somehow propel the baby out of her extremely fast to get momentum… o.O Fabian42 (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it needs to be slower.

On ejecting the "baby mass" (presumably retrograde), the "mother mass" (and "mothership and the rest of its contents) gain a reactionary forward momentum. As soon as the baby is caught or skids to a halt on the deliver-table/deck (assuming artificial gravity, the capability of which might suggest a reactionless 'gravity drive' solution, anyway!) or hits the stern bulkhead, it applies rearward momentum to the ship.

Due to the Oberth Effect, if you start this process (internal 'reaction thrust') at periapsis and manage to complete it (bring the bairn to 'rest', for internal ) at apoapsis then conceivably (...although that point was probably nine months earlier!) you could gain a maximal degree of assymetric momentum transfer in an orbital frame of reference.

But the infant must have been 'free floating' (or on a friction-free surface effectively unaffected by the perpendicularly applied internal gravity field) for the whole duration. Including whatever rotational conditions apply. (If the ship as a whole is sent on a marginally higher orbit by the movement of the baby, than it would previously have been, then the baby must be on a marginally lower orbit up to its subsequent recorrection by the eventual 'ship catch'.)

Though this may be impractical (without a huge ship-space to work within), you can^{[actual citation needed]} seemingly gain lesser effects by stretching the process out from periapsis 'birthing' to some pre-apoapsis 'catching'. The more instantaneous, though, the less effect, effectively to zero. (There's a slight change in the CoG of the mothership+baby system, but some thoughts on this might suggest 'forward birthing', or even 'upward', could redistribute the mass of the baby more out of the gravity-well for a marginal gain that is more than the marginal loss by combined the non-baby mass being sent fractionally deeper. But this very fine balance of effects seems to need more than the simple Newtonian calculations that normally suffice in orbital mechanics.)

Also, if I interpret the scenario correctly, there is no apoapsis (when achieved), as the aim is to attain an escape velocity instead of a sub-escape one (by however marginal a difference). As in on, or over, the "parabolic orbit", towards being a useful hyperbolic one with a finite time to return to Earth, rather than just being an extremely eccentric elliptic one. So (apart from delaying the 'catch' by infinite time/distance) it's probably going to very much earlier than the original limit-of-apoapsis had nothing been done.

But still as delayed as possibly, meaning that a veeerrryyy slow birth (and maybe also a stupendously long berth, as in habitation space!) is probablg what we need to be useful in a such a scenario. Or just somehow apply your internal control of gravity/inertia (as befits most sci-fi vessels, and is likely Reed Richards' department) to do something magical, propulsion-wise, or just whatever abilities Sue ('invisible forcefields', traditionally, not sure if they're in this film) and Johnny (the versions of him that happily 'flame-fly' through space, changing direction at will) could possibly bring to the party (distracted or not by a birth happening at the time). Heck, I bet Ben could just chuck something useless and massive out of the airlock (assuming they don't go full The Martian and throw their own air away) with his super-strength, and gain significant delta-V to make all the difference in any critically knife-edge situation as I'm imagining (not having seen this film, myself). 82.132.246.64 11:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)