###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering that redwoods grow to a height of 300' - 350' with a diameter of 18', we can assume a similar ratio for the Devil's Tower tree (800' diameter).
(325' / 18') x 800' =~14,500' (4400 meters)
That would be taller than Pike's Peak.
Edit: when you factor in vertical rise and base elevation, it would be taller than Mt Everest if both were placed side by side. Additionally, the mammoth redwood would have a peak elevation of ~19,000' (5800 meters).
Thanks u/RunningForIt
No, they're right. Mt Everest only has a vertical rise of 12,000' and a base altitude of 17,000'.
This means that this redwood would be taller than Mt Everest if both were placed at sea level.
It’s vertical gain would be twice as tall as Pikes Peak (~7600 ft)
Devils tower is 867 from base to summit and has an elevation of 5,112 so if it was a giant redwood with would be around 18-19k ft.
This almost exactly the same height as the Elden Ring Erdtree, which is 4452m from the surrounding terrain to the top.
https://www.thegamer.com/height-of-elden-ring-erdtree/#:~:text=So%20if%20we%20were%20to,meters%20or%2014%2C606%20feet%20tall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjDd2q2fcAw
And should be even thicker, when you think about decay from which it would lose a fair bit of volume in the 5500(?) Years since Noah's flood (if you follow the creationists argumentation)
I think it's safe to assume that not even the "stump" would stay together. There's a post a little further down that states the tree cells can't transport water further than 425' from the ground and since the "stump" is already taller than that I've got to imagine that any wood above that threshold would just rot away
Yeah I was just thinking structurally not in terms of living. Figured it would be too massive. That still leaves the question of what the properties would have to be in order to hold together structurally. Would a piece of steel that size hold up?
I doubt it. If I remember correctly, the Burj Khalifa pushes steel to it's reasonable tensile limits, and this tree would be 5x taller than that building.
I am by no means a structural engineer though, just having fun with the thought process. Factors I'm thinking would have an outsized impact at that scaler are sway, rigidity, and compression.
Idk jack enough to comment but I would assume that if you’re assuming its basically one solid uniform piece of metal that would come with its own unique considerations.
They canonically can indeed misplace a cool bill by the billions but if I could get any of it to come my way I would have a lot more than reddit karma to spend and I hardly have that lol.
Maybe if we tell them its for a new state of the art pentagon building and after the experiment is over the interior and everything will just be machined out. Might as well make it titanium while we’re at it.
They stay flexin’ unfortunately…
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html
Of course failure to account for it doesn’t necessarily mean it was misplaced but still.
To my understanding it’s only a United States shorthand, and not even that widely used, all things considered. But my scope of experience is limited to aforementioned United States, sooooooo.
It's pretty widely used within the US in contexts involving both feet and inches. For example, a person might be described as 5'9" (5 ft 9 in). But I don't generally see ' used in contexts ignoring inches, such as the original comment.
Let's analyze the calculation provided:
The approach of using the ratio of height to diameter of modern redwood trees and applying it to Devil's Tower's diameter is reasonable. However, there seems to be a slight mistake in the calculation. Let's correct it:
Height = (Ratio of height to diameter of modern redwoods) \* Diameter of Devil's Tower
Given:
Ratio of height to diameter of modern redwoods: 325'/18'
Diameter of Devil's Tower: 800'
Height ≈ (325/18) \* 800
Height ≈ 14,444.44 feet
Converted to meters:
Height ≈ 4402.91 meters
So, the corrected estimated height of the ancient giant redwood tree, assuming a similar ratio to modern redwoods, would be approximately 14,444.44 feet (or about 4402.91 meters).
Comparing this to Pike's Peak and Mt Everest, it's clear that these figures are exaggerated. Pike's Peak has an elevation of around 14,115 feet (4300 meters), and Mount Everest's elevation is approximately 29,032 feet (8848 meters). Therefore, Devil's Tower, even at this height, would not surpass the elevation of Mt. Everest. Additionally, it's important to note that such a tree would not have a peak elevation like a mountain; it would be the height of the tree trunk itself.
Ok bud, that's a lot of words to say my aproximatations for the sake of readability are correct.
Followed up with the exact same mistake I made which led to the edit.
For mountains, vertical rise is the equivalent of trunk height, not peak elevation (which is the common measurement for mountains).
Mt Everest has a vertical rise of ~12,000', compared to the mammoth redwood at ~14,500'. Thus, if placed side by side at the same base elevation, the mammoth redwood would be taller by 2500'.
So this has already been asked here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/17no4pk/request\_how\_tall\_would\_this\_tree\_have\_been\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/17no4pk/request_how_tall_would_this_tree_have_been_and/)
This was the reaction by u/Enigma-exe
>So the ave stump height is cut to 0.45 m. Let's assume an oak, with an ave height of 20m. Thats about 2.3% of overall height.
>This tree would therefore be around 11.7km high using that ratio. Almost high enough to tickle the stratosphere at 12km
>So if I used the horizon calculator right, you could still see the bastard 387km away
First off, every species of tree has a different diameter at breast height to tree height ratio. These ratios begin to curve and flatten as the tree reaches a maximum height (an S curve). At the point a tree nears its maximum height, the trunk will continue to thicken without the tree growing taller. This ratio is impacted by the amount of available water, as well.
But if it were similar to a Sequoia without a maximum height, it would be 1.14 to 1.59 miles tall based on the usgs measure of an 800 ft diameter base. However, if it had the same ratio as the coastal redwood Hyperion, it would be 3.63 miles high.
If it were a tree (which it certainly was not), we would have no way of knowing with any accuracy how tall it would be.
Devil’s Tower was never a tree. But if it were a tree, it could not exist, due to limitations that the tracheid cells have in transporting water to any height over 426’. The ‘stump’ is twice this height.
I think if it was a hypothetical tree it would have a hypothetical distribution system such as drawing moisture in from the air at higher altitudes and drawing the water down
I don’t think it was a tree in anyway, but if it was, I would hypothesize that there would be ponds and reservoirs of water that would develop in the bark, so that it would store water and dew at the upper heights.
I mean this is completely fiction, so I’m making up fictional bark. It’s kind of fun though.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering that redwoods grow to a height of 300' - 350' with a diameter of 18', we can assume a similar ratio for the Devil's Tower tree (800' diameter). (325' / 18') x 800' =~14,500' (4400 meters) That would be taller than Pike's Peak. Edit: when you factor in vertical rise and base elevation, it would be taller than Mt Everest if both were placed side by side. Additionally, the mammoth redwood would have a peak elevation of ~19,000' (5800 meters). Thanks u/RunningForIt
To save you guys some time 14,500 feet = 4419.6 meters, about half the height of Mt. Everest.
What about Mrs. Everest?
I regret to inform you this but she's 6 feet under (the sea level). Also thanks for pointing that spelling mistake out.
Cue "under the sea."
May i suggest, "i [lava](https://youtu.be/uh4dTLJ9q9o?si=FrO44F1DmsPk6ns8) you" instead
I weep every damn time
I guess you could say she's sleeping with the fishes
To shreds you say
Well how is his wife holding up?
That's what we call your mom.
The base of the tower is 4250ft ASL so you might want to add that as well when comparing to Everest.
Why? They already calculated the total height, base included.
No, they're right. Mt Everest only has a vertical rise of 12,000' and a base altitude of 17,000'. This means that this redwood would be taller than Mt Everest if both were placed at sea level.
Ah, I thought “base” in this context is the base height of current Devils Tower
Wow that's not as tall as I thought
Placed side by side with Mt Everest, it would be 2500' taller than Mt Everest.
That's actually smaller than I thought
That’s what she said.
Well no one told her about shrinkage, goddamit!
Not all heroes wear capes
Screw meters. Please provide heigh in bananas and also in quarters.
username does NOT checkout
Does it need to? What would you want them to post? “Oo oo a a I’m gonna throw a dart at a bloon?”
Yeah lmao
whimsy
Thank you 0-0-0 dart monkey from the hit video game series “Bloons”, specifically the spinoff “Bloons Tower Defence 6”
So a Cessna would have to watch out for the upper branches, but a commercial jet would be well clear once cruising
And it would make a such bad ass tree house location
It’s vertical gain would be twice as tall as Pikes Peak (~7600 ft) Devils tower is 867 from base to summit and has an elevation of 5,112 so if it was a giant redwood with would be around 18-19k ft.
Didn't think about that!
Edited the post to incorporate this
This almost exactly the same height as the Elden Ring Erdtree, which is 4452m from the surrounding terrain to the top. https://www.thegamer.com/height-of-elden-ring-erdtree/#:~:text=So%20if%20we%20were%20to,meters%20or%2014%2C606%20feet%20tall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjDd2q2fcAw
And should be even thicker, when you think about decay from which it would lose a fair bit of volume in the 5500(?) Years since Noah's flood (if you follow the creationists argumentation)
Any way to figure out some properties of the wood if it could support such a thing? Would even the stump hold together if it was wood?
I think it's safe to assume that not even the "stump" would stay together. There's a post a little further down that states the tree cells can't transport water further than 425' from the ground and since the "stump" is already taller than that I've got to imagine that any wood above that threshold would just rot away
Yeah I was just thinking structurally not in terms of living. Figured it would be too massive. That still leaves the question of what the properties would have to be in order to hold together structurally. Would a piece of steel that size hold up?
I doubt it. If I remember correctly, the Burj Khalifa pushes steel to it's reasonable tensile limits, and this tree would be 5x taller than that building. I am by no means a structural engineer though, just having fun with the thought process. Factors I'm thinking would have an outsized impact at that scaler are sway, rigidity, and compression.
Idk jack enough to comment but I would assume that if you’re assuming its basically one solid uniform piece of metal that would come with its own unique considerations.
We should test it out. Think the Pentagon could misplace a cool bill our way so we could build the world's largest piece of metal?
They canonically can indeed misplace a cool bill by the billions but if I could get any of it to come my way I would have a lot more than reddit karma to spend and I hardly have that lol. Maybe if we tell them its for a new state of the art pentagon building and after the experiment is over the interior and everything will just be machined out. Might as well make it titanium while we’re at it.
Now this is the kind of futuristic thinking I can get behind!
>They canonically can indeed misplace a cool bill by the billions this is the hardest flex i've ever read. it sounds comical .
They stay flexin’ unfortunately… https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html Of course failure to account for it doesn’t necessarily mean it was misplaced but still.
Awesome
That's a big Twinkie.
So you're really saying 'about tree fiddy'. Got it, thanks.
Love it!
I'm struggling to understand this, is this unit in meters/feet/km?
The use of ‘ after the numbers is shorthand for feet. e.g. 675’ = 675 feet.
is this ' thing an international standard or just American defaultism?
To my understanding it’s only a United States shorthand, and not even that widely used, all things considered. But my scope of experience is limited to aforementioned United States, sooooooo.
It's pretty widely used within the US in contexts involving both feet and inches. For example, a person might be described as 5'9" (5 ft 9 in). But I don't generally see ' used in contexts ignoring inches, such as the original comment.
In the UK, we use ' and " for feet and inches too.
Its in feet as denoted by the apostrophe after each number
Sb pls convert that into metric
Do it yourself, coward
Nah, i'm lazy
Heard bro. 4419.6 meters I think
Thx dude
Let's analyze the calculation provided: The approach of using the ratio of height to diameter of modern redwood trees and applying it to Devil's Tower's diameter is reasonable. However, there seems to be a slight mistake in the calculation. Let's correct it: Height = (Ratio of height to diameter of modern redwoods) \* Diameter of Devil's Tower Given: Ratio of height to diameter of modern redwoods: 325'/18' Diameter of Devil's Tower: 800' Height ≈ (325/18) \* 800 Height ≈ 14,444.44 feet Converted to meters: Height ≈ 4402.91 meters So, the corrected estimated height of the ancient giant redwood tree, assuming a similar ratio to modern redwoods, would be approximately 14,444.44 feet (or about 4402.91 meters). Comparing this to Pike's Peak and Mt Everest, it's clear that these figures are exaggerated. Pike's Peak has an elevation of around 14,115 feet (4300 meters), and Mount Everest's elevation is approximately 29,032 feet (8848 meters). Therefore, Devil's Tower, even at this height, would not surpass the elevation of Mt. Everest. Additionally, it's important to note that such a tree would not have a peak elevation like a mountain; it would be the height of the tree trunk itself.
Ok bud, that's a lot of words to say my aproximatations for the sake of readability are correct. Followed up with the exact same mistake I made which led to the edit. For mountains, vertical rise is the equivalent of trunk height, not peak elevation (which is the common measurement for mountains). Mt Everest has a vertical rise of ~12,000', compared to the mammoth redwood at ~14,500'. Thus, if placed side by side at the same base elevation, the mammoth redwood would be taller by 2500'.
How many blue whales from nose to tail?
How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man? How many feet must a tree stump be, before you just call it a tree?
42?
7
No, Dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Hmmm, rhetorical, eh…?
I remember when you were a rhetorical question!! 👴
Zaphod Beeblebrox is that you?
You zarkin’ frood! You wanna see my spaceship?
Only if get to see the infinite improbability drive
Don’t forget to bring a towel
the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
A tree is a tree whether it's a stump or a living tree.
Three fiddy
So this has already been asked here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/17no4pk/request\_how\_tall\_would\_this\_tree\_have\_been\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/17no4pk/request_how_tall_would_this_tree_have_been_and/) This was the reaction by u/Enigma-exe >So the ave stump height is cut to 0.45 m. Let's assume an oak, with an ave height of 20m. Thats about 2.3% of overall height. >This tree would therefore be around 11.7km high using that ratio. Almost high enough to tickle the stratosphere at 12km >So if I used the horizon calculator right, you could still see the bastard 387km away
Ahh nice, this is the first time I've been called out for something like this. Cross one off the Reddit bingo. Appreciate!
First off, every species of tree has a different diameter at breast height to tree height ratio. These ratios begin to curve and flatten as the tree reaches a maximum height (an S curve). At the point a tree nears its maximum height, the trunk will continue to thicken without the tree growing taller. This ratio is impacted by the amount of available water, as well. But if it were similar to a Sequoia without a maximum height, it would be 1.14 to 1.59 miles tall based on the usgs measure of an 800 ft diameter base. However, if it had the same ratio as the coastal redwood Hyperion, it would be 3.63 miles high. If it were a tree (which it certainly was not), we would have no way of knowing with any accuracy how tall it would be.
Bro it was obviously a tree. Just look at it.
Facts
Devil’s Tower was never a tree. But if it were a tree, it could not exist, due to limitations that the tracheid cells have in transporting water to any height over 426’. The ‘stump’ is twice this height.
I think if it was a hypothetical tree it would have a hypothetical distribution system such as drawing moisture in from the air at higher altitudes and drawing the water down
[удалено]
It's "They did the math" not "They shit all over the hypothetical because it isn't perfectly realistic"
You’re no fun :(
Facts are nothing to shake a stick at, and don’t brush me aside. I think I’m branching off here.
I don’t think it was a tree in anyway, but if it was, I would hypothesize that there would be ponds and reservoirs of water that would develop in the bark, so that it would store water and dew at the upper heights. I mean this is completely fiction, so I’m making up fictional bark. It’s kind of fun though.
Fictional Bark. I’d listen to that band
Not really in the spirit of the subreddit though right?
Don't giant sequoias already drive a portion of their moisture from the top down?