Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Romans built seismic 'invisibility cloaks'

9 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
and then

I wouldn't be surprised.  After all, those guys knew how to pour concrete under water :w00t:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
Quote

Critics of this idea however argue that the design may simply be a coincidence.

I'm going with this theory. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LucidElement

I was just there with my wife on our honeymoon 2 weeks ago lol. If I could have only given the guide a lesson of my own lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Takh01

Not only could they pour concrete under water, they used a formulae that still defies modern understanding. No modern concrete would last as long as the Roman concrete when exposed to salt water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

The amazing thing is how you worked the term "invisibility cloaks" into the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AXJ

Romans built 50,000 miles (80,000 km) of hard-surfaced roads and highways....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 5/8/2019 at 3:26 AM, UM-Bot said:

A new study has found that the Romans may have used 'metamaterials' to dampen the effects of earthquakes.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/327534/romans-built-seismic-invisibility-cloaks

I am unimpressed with this article.  While it makes claims, clearly the person who wrote it barely understood what they were being told, or the archaeologists involved were being extremely cagey about their claims (for whatever reasons).  No link or mention to the "study" is included, which is always a big red flag.  We are also given zero technical information about what the materials were made of or how they were used, which should be another pair of red flags.  I can understand if the method of manufacture is unknown, but if it were known it should have been included.  This article falls into the category of unsupported assertion at the moment.  I won't rate this topic just yet, as it might have some legs to it, but presently it isn't impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
Posted (edited)

It really is a crappy misleading article.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.