I don't even enjoy video games anymore, is there anything

>>36045854
Eventually you will. I too stopped finding video games and anime fun. I completely stopped playing and watching them and now I just spend all my time on /r9k/.

>>36045880
fuck glad to know im not the only one

>>36045854
oh no, video games are the only good thing on earth! might as well kill yourself retard!

>>36045854
>is there anything left for me in this world? Will i die here? On this board?

It's time to gather the discipline needed to experience high art: from philosophy to poetry, from architecture to classical and baroque music.
This is the next level of entertainment. The last one, obviously, is meditative mature contemplation.

You can rot here or you can enrich yourself through these means. It's up to you.

File: 1402022015836.jpg (32KB, 476x644px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 476x644px

>>36045953
>This is the next level of entertainment. The last one, obviously, is meditative mature contemplation.

File: lecondescendingbeardman.jpg (196KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1080x1920px

>>36045953
but baroque music is unpatrician as fuck

Yeah me too
I can't enjoy them anymore did u just turn myself into a normie?

>>36045953
architecture nigga?

baroque music wasn't even listened to in any serious way by the powdered wig fucks who popularized it

"meditative mature contemplation" isn't fucking entertainment

you sound so disconnected from reality

>>36045854
I wish I thought video games were dumb so I'd stop wasting my fucking life on them.

Recently started playing OP again, literally fuck my life.

Learn engineering and autistically calculate a mission to a planet/moon down to the weight of socks and toothbrushes, design your own components too, don't just take propulsion, life support, fuel tanks etc. off of other vehicles. I'm currently working on reaching this level.

>>36046328
that shit is easy though. NASA just pretends it's really hard to keep their space monopoly. Think about it, there's no air resistance in space, you don't even need to expend fuel, you just point where you want to go and you shoot yourself there.

File: 1487462322226.png (73KB, 618x618px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 618x618px

>>36046368
Not sure if bait or extremely ignorant of orbital mechanics. If it didn't take fuel to get somewhere in space, IE it took no energy to achieve a given speed, then the slightest tap could send something flying at the speed of light. The entire universe would be a CLANG mess of shit banging into each other then flying in the other direction just shy of c.

>>36045854
Yes, also you are a faggot

>>36046425
alright I wasn't being clear enough. On earth you need lots of gas to get from orlando to new york, because of wind resistance and friction. However in space there's no wind or friction so you can spend only say, a gallon of gas to get to a super-high top speed, which you wouldn't need to maintain (which you'd know if you were so math smart or whatever)

File: 1487780500253.png (53KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 520x390px

>>36045854
holy shit, i want to tap that so hard it ain't even funny

>>36046636
Oh god, you're actually fucking dumb aren't ya?
escape velocity from earth is 14 thousand m/s^2, and one gallon of gas, no matter how efficiently you burn it, is not going to get you going "to a super-high top speed". You still need literal tons of fuel to get from point A to B because it's not as simple as just giving yourself a small push and then waiting a while...

>>36046700
>escape velocity from earth is 14 thousand m/s^2
yeah, maybe if you're trying to blast a four-million-ton NASA rocket from elevation zero using propellants. Newsflash idiot, a sufficiently large balloon can escape into space simply by rising through the atmosphere normally, google it.
>because it's not as simple as just giving yourself a small push and then waiting a while...
actually it is, dummy. ever heard of inertia?

>>36046768
Oh gawd...
First off, do you even know what escape velocity is? It has nothing to do with leaving the atmosphere, but with leaving the gravitational well of the earth i.e getting to another planet. And a balloon will not do that, for reasons I hope I won't have to explain to you.
And if you give a small push on orbit, all it's going to do is add eccentricity to your orbit. You need to add a certain speed to actually be able to get out of said orbit, the so called escape velocity...
Seriously, I hope you're doing it on purpose.

>>36046636
Rockets have much less fuel density because they have to carry their oxidizer with them, directly throwing propellant out the back is also a lot less efficient than a combustion engine. You're right that once you get to a top speed you can keep drifting, only slowing down when ascending a gravity well or speeding up when descending one. But you still have to get that fuel up into orbit, which is by far the hardest part. Every gallon of fuel you add to the interplanetary transfer stage adds several gallons to the launch stage. If we could send up rockets by an elevator or giant gun, then we could reach Mars or Europa much easier.

Take a mission to mars for example, it takes 15.11 km/s of velocity to get there, but 9.4 of that is to launch, then only 5.71 to actually reach Mars assuming you aerobrake instead of using your thruster to stay in Mars orbit. For the price of lifting off Earth and going to Mars, you could go to Mars and back starting from Earth orbit, then still have 3.69 km/s of fuel left.

>>36046836
>First off, do you even know what escape velocity is?
apparently because I have to explain it to you

>And if you give a small push on orbit, all it's going to do is add eccentricity to your orbit. You need to add a certain speed to actually be able to get out of said orbit, the so called escape velocity...
Exactly, and it's not as hard as you would think. All you have to do is point the rocket down. You don't need a phd in dickweed math from NASA to do it

>>36046839
>it takes 15.11 km/s of velocity to get there, but 9.4 of that is to launch, then only 5.71 to actually reach Mars assuming you aerobrake instead of using your thruster to stay in Mars orbit.
Well a time constraint is another factor altogether. And obviously you can't just parachute onto mars since there's no air, but other than that I think you're really overthinking it.

>>36046979
You can parachute onto Mars, or use the atmosphere to slow down just enough that you don't carry on past it. But the atmosphere is thin enough that the extra fuel for a powered landing weighs less than parachutes, the heatshield for aerobreaking still weighs less than powered capture though. You're clearly too retarded to understand any of this though, seeing as you think delta V is a time constraint.

>>36047023
>You can parachute onto Mars, or use the atmosphere to slow down just enough that you don't carry on past it.
that's called crashing, dummy, we're trying to AVOID that

>>36046979
Clearly you don't know what it is, so let me explain it in really clear words:
Once you leave the atmosphere, you are in orbit. If you add speed to said orbit, no matter the angle (if we consider said orbit was perfectly circular), it will get elliptical. Said ellipse will be dependent on the added speed: the more speed you add, the more elliptic the trajectory gets. Eventually, if you keep adding speed, your ellipse will eventually be beyond what is commonly referred to as the Sphere of Influence of an object, meaning that it's gravitational pull is not sufficient to counteract the speed you added. Up until that point, you don't leave the orbit of you planet, and you have to add a certain amount of speed to get to this point, after which you are able to make a transfer to another place.
This operation has nothing to do with leaving the atmosphere, and requires a certain amount of acceleration, which is dependent on the gravitational pull of the object you're orbiting, and it just so happens that the amount of speed necessary is around 11 thousand kilometers per second for the earth. This speed can only be achieved via using a certain amount of fuel, which you have to put into orbit first.
So just adding a small amount of speed is not enough to get away from the earth, unless this small amount is 11 km/s...

>>36047134
clearly you don't know how space works so let me explain it to you:

fuck orbits, fuck ellipses, just go straight up in a LINE away from earth. it's that simple

>>36045854

I stopped playing games when I realized movies did everything I like about them better

e.g. visuals, story, characters, etc

Gameplay, aka mashing buttons, was always my least favorite part of games. Which is why I stopped obviously.

>>36047188
Hope you enjoy wasting enough fuel to reach Alpha Centauri in only a few decades.

File: 442095093_preview_dunning-kruger-effect.png (98KB, 1621x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1621x768px

>>36047188
Okay, I give up, keep chimping out at your ignorance.
Or try to get funding for your space-car, if you are that enlightened about what physicists have been scratching their heads on for decades.

>>36047216
I won't need any fuel because unlike the retards at nasa I would use BALLOONS.

>>36047274
okay mr. smarty-pants I-think-going-in-circles-is-faster-than-going-straight fucky mcfuckface

>>36045854
i took few months break and enjoy them once again
mostly older titles pre 2010 games

>tfw nihilist

Everything just seems so fucking pointless and boring