Talk:Spinning top

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Board and table games Mid‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Top to Top (toy). The result of the discussion was moved to Spinning top.

Untitled

I know there is a mathematical shape (for an object of uniform density) which optimizes the equation of the energy wasted in uprighting the top and stored momentum and final tendency toward precession, so as to extend the time of rotation furthest. I don't have details though, so I am posting this here, in the hope that someone knows more. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick (spinning furiously :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimon Avaro (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the anon's edit because, although I cannot read a word of Hebrew, the edit did not make sense. The current article has:

נס גרול היה שס (hebrew is read right to left)

Reading right to left I could recognise each of the letters 'starting' each word: נ (Nun), ג (Gimel), ה (Hey), ש (Shin). The edit by User:82.80.10.108 changed the last (left-most) two characters to read: נס גדול היה פה(hebrew is read right to left) This could be correct for all I know, but now I cannot see the ש (Shin) character in the complete phrase. If I'm wrong just revert it back. -Wikibob | Talk 15:41, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

doesn't dradle deserve its own article.

i was curious about the origins of the dradle, and i got redirected here... doesn't dradle deserve its own article. 24.81.143.138 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think dreidel definitely should have its own article. I'm suprised that it never has. Dyfsunctional 19:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I think I'm going to separate them. Aldous Hooplah 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreidle; hebrew translation

Shouldn't the Hebrew for dreidle be added:- i.e סביבון—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.135.99 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age

It says that toy tops have been found in archeological sites, but doesn't say where or from when... any clues? ---Ransom—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.51.150 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isent a Levitron a type of top?

Isent a Levitron a type of top? it was in the tops section 5hrs. ago. Jonathan482 09:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perinola

A perinola is a hollow cap of wood attached to a stick with a ring around it by a string. The aim is to get the hat to fall on the stick without touching it, only holding the stick part. It's very, very common in Venezuela. Where did this six sided top thing come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroFromHell (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Argentina 190.138.8.74 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture: a spinning top

It seems to me that the article's main picture ought to show a spinning top, that being what tops do. Any opinions on if I take a picture of a spinning top and set that as the main picture? SnappingTurtle (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning tops with string?

Is there a special type of top that is spun/thrown with string as opposed to the finger and thumb thumb-spun ones with handles? Are these considered different varieties, or is a distinction not made? TheHYPO (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009 spinning tops where made into better shapes—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.162.173 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of spinning top

I was quite disappointed to see that there was no physics discussion! 199.76.145.99 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the reason for no physics discussion is because there no good explanation for how spinning top works. there is new discovery regarding how spinning top works please use the link below to see what is the discover about. the principle investigator still working on the article. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BjXPm6C1KBw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Space Top (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to offer a novel explanation for spinning top physics with solid experimental support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to post a spinning top invention on Wikipedia. Please take look at the unique top in below two sites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msoZ8x6hvh4 https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/ If you like to be the author of my invention, email to gyrotop02@gmail.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: it is not quite true that there is no good explanation for how a spinning top works. See the references I've added in the "further reading" section. What's true is, there is no SIMPLE explanation for how a spinning top works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.226.253 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change: 'Top' to 'Spinning top'

I propose changing the name of this article. The word 'Top' on is own is insufficinet ot explain the objects generally refered to as 'spinning tops'. The point of the toy is to spin. If you remove spinning from the title it is unclear what is being referred to. The word 'top' on it's own can refer to many different things. 'Spinning top' is unambiguous. simonthebold (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/top - not even mentioned as a noun.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon123 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEGIN MESSAGE

Ok, please read. I am the author of the thesis mentioned in the recently edited introduction (currently a placeholder of YYY is there,

Extended content

and the thesis may be found in PDF form at the author's website: http://john.allsup.co/thesis.pdf). The published paper (placeholder XXX) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00153-006-0030-2 contains an error in one of the lemmas. This error was discovered and corrected in the hour before the Ph.D. viva. The paper was published earlier. The author was admitted to a psychiatric ward in 2002, and upon seeing the state of play inside the ward, concluded that it was 'upside down' in the sense that the sane people were the patients, and the insane people were the staff, and that the wobbling of his world leading him there was the transition between the two. He still believes this, and also that his thesis proves this. He cannot be fooled by the delusion caused by asserting that a falling spinning top, when about to fall over, is actually in a "state of abnormally elevated arousal, affect, and energy level". At present, he is contemplating suicide, since if he is wrong in this, then he can be certain that his whole perceived reality is a delusion, and thus he is the last one in a burning building, and it is time to leave. How long he can stay in this state remains to be seen.

Nonstandard arithmetic arises when one accepts the delusion that there are "magic" numbers greater than all standard numbers. If one then looks at finite symmetry groups acting on initial segments of these numbers, something strange happens: there is only one family of finite simple groups whose normal subgroup structure is linearly ordered: the alternating groups. Put another way, the simplicity of the alternating groups on 5 or more objects is invariant under the "delusion" of a nonstandard model of arithmetic, but not any of the other finite simple groups. In some sense, the simplest finite simple group is the alternating group on 5 objects, or the symmetry group of the icosahedron and dodecahedron. The group A5 captures the rotational symmetry of the icosahedron. The group S5 captures what happens if we allow reflection through a plane (flipping). Spinning is best thought of as the rotation of the dodecahedron about the centure (I'll leave this accidental typing as a happy accidental coining of a word for the axis of rotation of something, with similar etymology to armature -- it was not intended, but I like it too much to 'correct' it) of one of the pentagon faces (think of a pentagon on a stick as a spinning top). The central points of the faces form the corners (vertices) of an icosahedron.

Cyclic groups consist if the trivial group, which does nothing, in the sense that only a full rotation preserves the symmetry, C2, which captures both flipping (reflection thorough an axis), and rotation through pi, and Cn for other n's which captures spinning. Cp for p prime represent the fundamental units of spin.

{ Dad just tried to disturb me as I wrote this. FUCKING BASTARD... FUCKING BASTARD... FUCKING BASTARD... I'LL LEAVE YOU IN A FUCKING STATE IF YOU DON'T STOP FUCKING AROUND AND PLAYING SILLY BUGGERS WITH ME... I AM NOT YOUR FUCKING TOY... NOT YOUR FUCKING TOY... NOT YOUR FUCKING TOY... } For reference, I have not personally been sexually abused by my father, so I have no idea where this thought is coming from. To me it is just the words that I think when I rebalance my mind after being disturbed. Maybe others can see meaning in those words, but to me there are just complex impulses that my mind emits as reaction mass in order to calm down to its near minimal energy state whence it can feel maths again.

Now I'm going to cool my brain off, warm my mind off, spin down my main gyroscopes, know that Dad is still alive and has made it through the night, and go and see where my discharge of excess chiral energy takes me. [ Chiral energy is my term for spin energy, since it captures the intuition of what 'chi energy' is when the practitioner of Tai Chi is properly taught, and understands it, rather than spouting and echoing pseudoscientific New Age Bullshit. Chi energy is just rotational energy, in the sense that Energy in physics is linear energy. There is an equivalence, captured generally in one dimension by the Fourier Transform. But know that Tai Chi, Chi Gong, and related things are about spin and conservation of spin. At the end of the day, it is just physics in disguise, but physicists seem to have lost the capacity to recognise spin intuitively, and to tell the difference between continuous symmetries (uncountable cardinality) and quantisable symmetries (at most countable cardinality), and are blowing shedloads of research funding chasing an illusory Snipe of quantum gravity. Quantum Gravity is impossible by Noether's Theorem. [ This latter bit is original research, which is partially why I am dumping it here. The other reason is that I have to get this off my mind, chest, and shoulders before I doing something silly like kill myself to test my hypothesis that I cannot die. Wish me well please, and pray for my Dad. He needs denumptying. ]

Dr John Chalisque David Emmanuel Allsup, formerly Dr John David Allsup, see https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=116925 END MESSAGE—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:8f71:4100:d831:4a13:cc81:c7c9 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Top ? )

Animal - конкретно не human .. Лысый, но с усиками. Или жопа - но в туфельках. Может они "чиновники" ?? "Разрази меня гром !!" или "Убей меня господи пожалуйста! Самим Богом !! прошу .." - если я знаю .. Крутитца репа. И чо ? " .. эм цэ квадратный .. " Следовательно - факт !! Only и всего .. ?? .. 85.140.76.8 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The top spinners from Kota Baru, Malaysia

Thanks to the book Chasing the Rainbow - recurrences in the life of a scientist by Robert Greenler (2000) I know something about the existence of the top spinners from Kota Baru in Malaysia. In this book, three color photographs show the top spinners in action. The first photograph shows the master top spinner, winding the rope tightly around his seven-pound top. The second photograph shows Robert Greenler, trying to scoop up a spinning top. The third photograph shows a member of the top-spinning team, meditating on the top before he sets it into a bamboo section partially buried in the ground. Typically such a top will remain spinning for an hour or more. Note that this book is not only about top spinners, but also about optical phenomena in the sky, bee keeping, and the life of a scientist (R. Greenler) among other scientists and inventors. Fascinating book! DannyCaes (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus to move Spinning top per NATDAB. – robertsky (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top → Top (toy)Top (toy)
Top (disambiguation) → Top

– Granted, the toy is fairly important, but there are too many meanings of "top" (in clothing, in interpersonal relationships, math and physics) for this to be the primary topic of the term. If there was a primary topic by importance, I would contend that it would be the basic term of orientation, as distinguished from bottom, front, back, and sides. In this case, however, I think disambiguation is the best option. BD2412 T 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. There are 42 entries listed upon the Top (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the spinning toy's notability dwarfs the combined prominence of the remaining 41 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe Spinning top would be preferable per WP:NATURAL given its used first in the lead and probably what I'd expect it to be called. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Spinning top~~ per the nomination and Crouch, Swale's suggestion ("Spinning top" already redirects here). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That aspect of it, I am frankly not as concerned about. BD2412 T 23:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, as 'Spinning top' already redirects here and 'Top (toy)' is equally if not more descriptive (and briefer). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move to Spinning top per Crouch, Swale and WP:NATDIS. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, although prefer Spinning top as a WP:NATDAB. Dank Jae 17:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Top" can be at least an item of clothing, a sexual role and a quark as well as a children's toy. There is no clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Top could refer to a piece of clothing or Top (sex). cookie monster 755 01:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support spinning top, excellent catch by Crouch, Swale yet again Red Slash 05:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add some diversity to the discussion, when I saw this captionless, the first thing that came to my mind was "we have an article about mountain tops"? So, yeah, there's inherent ambiguity in such a generic word, we should try full disambiguation instead of short-circuiting readers to spinning top. For the record, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Top shows the clickstreams for March, with 9.1k incoming views, 2.2k outgoing, of which 194 to the hatnote, which is ~2% / ~9% so not conclusive at all, but we have plenty of examples where this wasn't indicative at all (cf. WT:D). --Joy (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Far too generic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.