OK SO there's tons of research on microscopic objects and

>>7732253
Yes. They're called "telescopes."

The only objects that cannot be seen because they are too large are the ones we're inside, and thus miss the forest for the trees. By allowing us to see very far out, we can pick up large-scale structure we wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

This is how we discovered the filamentous voids-and-walls structure of the Universe, and the shape of our own galaxy.

Yes, It´s called astronomy.

>>7732259
stars are not too large to be sensed, that's silly

>>7732257
>The only objects that cannot be seen because they are too large are the ones we're inside
is closer to what I'm getting at, but I'm thinking about superlarge objects apart from the superlarge object we're already in

you know, really maxoscopic stuff

>>7732256
What an interesting pattern. I'm sure there are some totally banal reasons for it being like that though.
- science

The universe itself is too large to fully map and explore. We have one point in space that we can view it from. Barring FTL / Ra Nonlocality / long distance teleportation, everything outside of the observable universe is gone, as far as we're concerned.
It's all still out there, but it's way too big and expanding too quickly for most of it to interact with our corner of it in any way at all.
I wonder if there will still be stars when it's so spread out that every star is alone in its own observable universe.

>>7732304
I'm talking more literal than that.

Like, atoms are so small, they exceed the lower boundary for the size of something the human eye is capable of seeing.

Are there objects that are so enormous that the human eye simply cannot perceive them, even from a short distance away?

>>7732304
>Ra Nonlocality

Well that's a reference I didn't expect anyone else to make. Wow.

File: hubblesaturn.jpg (98KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1600x1200px

>>7732351
A big problem with small things, even before you get to atoms, is that they're smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. There's no equivalent of this for extremely large stuff.
Consider it in terms of angular size, how much of your field of view an object takes up. A massive monolith 9 light years long, 4 wide, and 1 deep could still be resolved by the naked eye, as long as it's far enough away and well lit. But you could never hold a molecule of, say, sugar close enough to see, because even if it's sitting on your cornea its angular size is still basically nothing.
If something is so huge and so close that the only time you don't see it in the sky is when you're looking directly away from it, you wouldn't be able to resolve its entirety, but you could see the bits closest to you just fine.

>>7732355
Ra was the shit. I'm still trying to find something like it. A Beginner's Guide to Magical Licensing isn't quite doing it, but I haven't started Worm yet. Any suggestions?

>>7732384
I haven't really found anywhere else with that blend of science-magic Ra had initially.

You might enjoy Floornight, maybe? It's not really similar at all but it seems like something you might enjoy if you liked Ra.

File: 1393403052270.jpg (621KB, 2261x1696px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 2261x1696px

>>7732390
Thanks. Have an aurora.

For the topic, two last thoughts. This is based on our current understanding of the universe. There could be HUGE things just sitting out there that don't interact with light in the ways we expect. My handwaving could be like 1500s scientists dismissing atomism because something 'too small' to be able to see is ridiculous.
It's got a weird Lovecraft vibe, huge things that have been there for however long, that no one's noticed. Someone call an author because it creeps me out and I like that.

Second- if there was something too large to see, how would that work? Would it be transparent? Opaque but pitch black or visual noise? If it wasn't a single monolithic thing, like the earth, would you be able to resolve individual clumps or clods of it?
Actually, the closest thing I can think of to satisfy OP's question is a cold, naked neutron star. It's not especially huge, but I don't know if neutronium interacts much at all with light. It might just be a mass of faintly colored blobbiness surrounded by gravitational lensing.

>>7732416
clarification, sage if that still works.
A neutron star would be weird like that because of what it's made of, not because of its size. They're kind of puny. It's not a good answer because glass does the same thing.

>>7732416
>I don't know if neutronium interacts much at all with light
I'd imagine it would be opaque. There isn't much binding it to particular energy states.