UM-Bot Posted May 7, 2019 #1 Share Posted May 7, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted May 7, 2019 #2 Share Posted May 7, 2019 I wouldn't be surprised. After all, those guys knew how to pour concrete under water 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiff Posted May 7, 2019 #3 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Quote Critics of this idea however argue that the design may simply be a coincidence. I'm going with this theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidElement Posted May 8, 2019 #4 Share Posted May 8, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takh01 Posted May 8, 2019 #5 Share Posted May 8, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted May 9, 2019 #6 Share Posted May 9, 2019 The amazing thing is how you worked the term "invisibility cloaks" into the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXJ Posted May 10, 2019 #7 Share Posted May 10, 2019 Romans built 50,000 miles (80,000 km) of hard-surfaced roads and highways.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchopwn Posted May 10, 2019 #8 Share Posted May 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonman Posted May 10, 2019 #9 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) It really is a crappy misleading article. Edited May 10, 2019 by moonman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now