Ooh, that’s a subtle point. I was wondering about that Wikipedia claim myself.
The closest I got to a refutation was Brenda Lee released Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree in 1958. It became a #1 hit … in 2023.
Given her position, there’s a joke in there somewhere, but I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot banana.
If we use the “Cash Box” charts as a reference for the pre-“Venus”/Frankie Avalon living single artist with number ones we get:
1958: Laurie London - “He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands”. (he recorded this at the age of 13).
1957: Johnny Mathis - “Chances Are”. (recorded at the age of 22).
“Cash Box” had one chart each week (although the number of songs listed gradually increased over the years).
A couple decades ago, I learned of this endeavor,
a large tapestry woven from the silk of about a million red-legged golden orb weavers (pretty critters on their own). The spiders were caught, deftly placed into a silking machine, silked, and then released into the wild, probably to be caught again later for another round of silking. (How they manage to extract the non-sticky silk is not clear to me.)
What I did not know is that this was not the first time a spider silk tapestry had been made. Apparently, one was shown at the 1898 Paris Exposition, which was made with the help of a silking machine of the same design as the one used a century later; but the whereabouts of original work entered the territory of unknown.
Wow, I didn’t know anyone had ever harnessed spider silk to make something macroscopic.
Technically, spider silk is macroscopic itself. Depending on how good (or really bad) your eyes are.
Nah, that’s just scopic. Macroscopic is bigger than that.
I believe the key is that that species of orb spider begins by spinning the strands that will outline and support the web, which are non-sticky. So those are the strands that get harvested.
What is the word for something that is so big you cannot see it (e.g., the solar system)? Exoscopic?
After some googling, I don’t think there is such a word. Or at least the people arguing over what it should be don’t know.
Let’s invent one. How about solumarboriscopic, as in only seeing the trees, not the forest.
Nah, too many syllables. Make it short and clear like megascopic or gigascopic. Or troposcopic, like the Italian tropo: too much.
By strict construction the opposite of microscopic is macroscopic.
Besides the entire universe what is too big to see when you get far enough away from it?
Why not ultramacroscopic (beyond macroscopic)?
How about extroscopic, meaning beyond the ability to scop. Or maybe go with subscopic and superscopic for the extremes.
You can see microscopic things – with a microscope. The solar system, for example, is not something you can see, ever, really. When you are within it, you cannot find a vantage point where you can get a full view of it, and if you go far enough out that it is all in your field of view, you still cannot see it because the inner elements (like Mercury or Earth) are too small and close together to be resolved, and the outer elements (Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud) are so diffuse and rarified that they are simply not observable.
IOW, I submit that there are entities that are so big that they cannot be seen.
I have some issues with your definition. Using it we would have to say that we don’t see the galaxies that telescopes spot.
Take, at random, M65.
Although we appear to see boundaries, much of M65, including stars and planets, is not resolvable. What do you call the remainder that appears in that picture?
If resolution of every individual object is required for seeing, then it doesn’t take much at all for an object to become too big to see. A crowd in a stadium will do. The grove of trees and brush in my neighbor’s yard. The hair remaining on my head. Can’t get much smaller than that.
I’ve actually argued before that the Grand Canyon is too big to see. You don’t see a canyon; you see a cliff, and then WAAAAY over there, another cliff. The smaller Yellowstone Canyon is much more impressive, because it’s small enough to see.
Today I learned that phytophotodermatitis is a thing.