User:Wongizzle06

I am a man of scientific principles; I'm of the age of 15 and yet I can understand the importance of governments in society; manditory education systems; the basics of advanced calculus; and almost everything there is to know about Astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, and chemistry, (I'm not that familiar with all of biology, but I'm starting to research it.) I've pretty much have always had an idea on what's going on around me, and I've progressed through the various sciences of our world from a point of when I was only 6 years old; at this time I had studied the principles of astronomy, being my favorite of all of the universal sciences, (asside from my new area of study; quantum physics.) I moved on from astronomy, after learning the basics of what makes up the cosmos, and went on into cosmology at around 8 or 9. I had developed a fascination on the idea that the universe can be explained, using the properties of physics, from its beginning to theoretical ends involving gravitational collapse or an ever-expanding infinity. I grew up on the books that I found in my brother's school's library; I read things about gravity and the physics behind black holes. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand much of the stuff that was in these books at that time, and I, for some reason I kept contemplating the vast distances that seperate our galaxy cluster from the Virgo cluster, the closest galaxy cluster; this is one of the random thoughts I often experience when I'm contemplating the vastness of our universe.

WARNING!
Taking things of speculation for actual literal concepts is both stupid and ingenious; ingenious because of your openness to alternative explanations to problems of everyday life that have been dismissed or indirectly solved; stupid because of your dependencies on others for finding solutions, when the machine that allows you to comprehend everything in your life - including this message that you are reading right now, has the ability to stretch your perception to another level of rationalization: In other words, you can read this article; study this article; interpret this article; discard this information - but don't think that it is reality if you truly do not sense the solutions that I will present to you, in the same way as I do, (and I don't even fully regard this info. as being the ultimate comprehension/explanation to reality, considering the fact that my interpretation is generally not regarded as the "professional/expert" view on all the scientific methods covered by this article.)

The rest of this article is completely based upon opinion and any factual knowledge not regarding my contributions should be completely regarded, (besides half of this stuff you probably should not read anyways, its mostly total nonsense.)

My General Interface
I have spent most of my pre-teen life pondering about everything; from space to elements; from mathematics to alternate dimensions. I wasn’t drawing in coloring books, playing outside, or even doing much school-related activities. I’m very artistic, but I despise abstract art; this is not because it is abstract to real life analogues, but simply because realistic art, whether based on factual of fictional occurrences, is not appreciated as a remarkable form of expression today because of major social abstraction. My dissection of this situation is because of society’s ever decreasing sense of physical perception.

What's Wrong with Everything
Thoughts like these have always lingered in my mind. This is because of my complex way of perceiving and comparing what was the actual outcome of any given moment I had witnessed, to what would have been if the situation was altered: I take an event; recall it as a memory; describe it mentally as an algebraic equation or question; and then I plug in variables to see what would have happened when a section of the original problem were to have been evaluated using the replaced variable, instead of the originally recorded value. This is a basic description; the more complex description could be compared to the computing done in calculus problems, (like using differential values based on varying modes of physical perception; sound, sight, and/or touch; these are then rated by varying their individual intensities, upon limiting their values based on a final dimension of time that determines the end values needed for comparisons of those values to the actual events.) The process doesn’t even stop there; I often compute even more variables, based on what might occur if the instance was perceived by other, exotic, (but common in nature), examples of extra-sensory perception. Beyond this, I can even sometimes review my own, personal definitions of the senses that I had originally computed, and then I would research what real-life analogues exploit these senses in their everyday life. All of these thought processes are simplified as much as possible to be explained in words, because of my ever defining perceptive view on reality and how far the calculations, on a dimensional scale, can go. Everyday I independently learn, study, and apply new information to my life. I can explain the reason I do this, and that is because I don’t think about my life as if it were a maze, that if I run into a wall, I would turn to continue moving; my explanation, in proportion to the maze interpretation, is if I started in a maze that requires me to avoid obstacles that I would run into on my journey to the end destination, then I wouldn’t just head on in without having evaluated my surroundings first in as many ways as possible. These types of evaluations could be like, what is the motive behind me desiring to enter unfamiliar territory in order to reach an undefined destination; what is the direction of the undefined destination; what other dimensions of travel could I utilize to make my trip to the undefined destination shorter; and what kinds of materials are these walls comprised of that indefinitely barricade me to this one-way dimension of travel, inevitably preventing the choices of my spatial concept of that particular environment, and, furthermore, my resulting thesis on how I could carry out the task of traveling in this labyrinth-type space with the maximum possible time to spare on this quest to the ultimate end.

What's the scope of Things
A conclusive explanation for the paradigms to my conceptual thought processes of my indecisive manner of perception is the fact that I have this perception on reality that I use to my advantage to answer many questions I have and have had over the course of my lifetime. The reasoning behind me writing all of this background information on my cognitive ability is because in the seldom situation of someone reading the text beyond this section in this article being intrigued by the theories explained, and developed by me and wants to learn more about the subject, this part of the article would be a good guide to give that person an understanding of this article’s developer, (most of the information in this article is completely originated after a few hours of pondering in my room.)

What is the Multiverse
The universe, in its vast and incomprehensible magnitude, is disputed by common culture in society as being anything less than the entirety of all of physical reality; in popular science theories, the beginning of the universe, or “The Big Bang”, is described as being the cradle of all four dimensions of space-time and anything before this point of creation is nonexistent and is referred to as “T is equal to Zero”, (no time is elapsing so nothing happens.) Most of the dispute is starting to settle down, and the general public refers to the Big Bang Theory as being the actual event that conjured existence. This is not a problem to my theoretical concept on reality except for the part in the Big Bang theory that describes the big bang event as being the start of all entirety and nothing beyond this point is a relevant object nor is it part of physical reality. This is a problem to my theory, and apparently was a problem to theoretical physicists studying cosmology all around the world. These scientists had proposed the theory on alternate universes, coexisting inside of an even larger unimaginably complex system of universal plains called the multiverse. This plain of dimensionally infinite universes would propose the mathematical theory of measurable distances beyond that of infinity. Though incomprehensible when factoring in the limited perspective of humans on aspects that describe dimensional space beyond that of the 4th dimension, humans have for a while been using mathematical calculations to determine these individual areas of dimensional space and how they are manipulated along the path of the single dimension of time. Albert Einstein was one of these scientists when he developed his theories on special and general relativity. These calculations, scientifically, point towards the theory that proposes the universe we live in as having a curved dimensional boundary, which is based on the gravity of objects that reside within the Universe. This would settle the uncertainty behind the obstinate problem on the universe being an infinite object of reality, or it being an ultimate plain of dimensional reality that is, indeed, finite; the answer was that it was finite. This takes us back to the multiverse and its properties, if its existence is definite; the theory of the multiversal plain of reality is complex and it varies on descriptions and explanations. The Multiverse is defined by today’s specialists as an area of reality where the limits are uncertain but the definitive fact is that it is comprised of subsystems of dimensionally separate universes including our own. These are the basic facts that are all that is needed to move on to the next step in theoretical comprehension.

The Nth Dimension
This is really all we can equate to in are quest for extra-dimensional understanding because of our limited time, space, perception, and comprehensible knowledge that humans have to deal with everyday; the only thing we can really do beyond this point is calculate relative equations that can describe happenings in these areas of reality and theorize based on the results of those calculations. This is not all true, as a matter of fact. People have found ways to use two-dimensional/three-dimensional analogues to an array of nth-dimensional spaces. People have also used patterns found in the manipulation of a lesser dimensional space to incorporate characteristics of the next corresponding dimension of space: This is useful, but aside from having a good idea of what dimensions beyond that of three would look like, this method of dimensional projection is likely to be quite inaccurate. Furthermore, even some of the world’s greatest scientific figures have ruled out the multiversal theory of coexistence because dimensions greater than that of three, (sometimes four; the time dimension), are irrelevant to the mathematical equations that describe extra dimensions in geometry and they also would suggest a space-time paradox even greater than any instances that can be proven by string theory/M-theory.

Entering Neutrality: More Dimensions
My description of the Multiversal Dimensional Paradox is as follows: As we analyze the world around us, we discover our ability to change our relative position in the space that we reside in. The spaces that we call this change are based on the geometric term for these changes and the spaces that govern these overall changes; the Cartesian Coordinate System. This coordinate system displays the dimensions and parameters discovered when one is making a physical description about the planar area occupied by a two-dimensional object. The system is comprised of two axis, the x-axis and the y-axis, which govern the distances covered by any given point or set of points; any given line or line segment; and/or any given geometric shape that has only two-dimensions: Height and width. This calculation is based on the evaluated amount of space covered by the grid that is formed by the values, contained within the window of the graph, of the x and y axis. These objects are calculated based on the visible representation that is relative to the coordinate graph that is presented to the evaluator; this is not a very reliable representation when there is no relevant representation present on the graph, and that can be solved by algebra, trigonometry, and/or any other form of values that can be equated into a set of steps in order to balance a phrase and find a solution that is equal to that of the needed point to be plotted accordingly. The next step is to calculate manipulations of those individual equations, from a set of equations, to find outcomes of varying instances; this can be done by differential and integral calculus. Calculus is a very useful tool in the Cartesian Coordinate System, as well as other topological coordinate system, and therefore is useful to calculate dimensions higher than that of two. But the problem is that the areas of manipulation for alternate outcomes when trying to find a solution, no matter how complex, stop right there with calculus at the very top. This is where physical mathematical calculations stop and theoretical calculations start. This may not be much of a problem for mathematicians but it is a major calculations error for theoretical physicist when calculating and interpreting extra-dimensional spatial regions. This is because humans have no way of determining what is the right interpretation of dimensional planes beyond that of three, and that is because the space described by a three-dimensional coordinate graph is height, width, and depth; the scientific analogue of 3-D space is the physical movement between the areas generalized by front to back; right to left; and up to down, which is relative to that person’s original facing direction: Slope of the different positions when connected to form a line or lines; their elevation, with respect to the origin of that person’s surface normal, (which would be the value y=0 on a graph), and the difference of their relative elevation: Y-axis; their particular longitudinal position, with respect to the surface normal of their origin: Z-axis; and their particular latitudinal position, with respect to the surface normal of their origin: X-axis. Einstein, however, thought of this as redundant of how reality is determined just by that of three spatial dimensions, so he had proposed the incorporation of the time dimension as being the forever changing dimension that governs the instances taken place within the confines of reality in a continuous motion for an infinite amount of chronons; individual units or intervals that describe a change from one point in time to another. The puzzling sense that came to be when this new explanation was theorized was the fact that if the theory was correct, then the spatial dimensions were not the only ones that ultimately govern the instances and events that take place in our universe. Einstein realized this but had then incorporated the ideas that mathematicians use for these extra-spatial dimensions; the terasect. The terasect is commonly referred to as, “The Hypercube”, because of its four dimensions of spatial characterization and is used frequently in geometric topology for characterizing descriptive relationships of related objects, indirectly corresponding to spatial planes of characterization. A hypercube is an indescribable object of physical reality because of calculus conflicts that happen when trying to graph a, i.e., hypercube with conventional planar means; you can develop the outlook but not the axial coordination of the graph because there is no real life analogue that we know of to display these configurations in a dimensional perspective that would equal the dimensions of a hypercube, or any 4-D object for that matter.

Math in the Multiverse
Where the theories, questioning, and paradoxes end, mathematical reasoning can begin. The theory I have presented as the answer to this ever consuming paradox to the cosmological community when trying to describe areas of dimensional characteristics with similar relation to our own, but indescribable extra-dimensional features, has many properties of which make it unique.

Mathematical Interpretation of Extradimensional Space
One important property is the fact that most of the calculations resulting in extra-dimensional spaces described in this theory are based on a new mathematical analogue to this type of calculating. It is all explained simply by starting with the number “zero”. Zero is a puzzling number because it has no value in the field of mathematics. Although this is true with respect to physics, zero can also be described as the representation of perfect balance, like in the familiar studies of entropy or the absences of motion, with reference to the Kelvin temperature scale, (absolute zero.) Zero can also be described as the intermediate value in charges and polarity extremes; like positive and negative. For whatever explanation you want to use to describe zero, when referring to coordinate-based equations, zero is the value of nothing; this isn’t a problem at all with respect to spatial dimensions less than or equal to three. The only problem is when the number of dimensions exceed this point of space, in which the positioning of axis are construed with a higher form of relevancy, which then carries the level of perceptual explanation along with it. This new level of perception is beyond that of the average, three-dimensional being’s comprehension at this point in time. The solution to this problem can be uncovered using the mysteries enveloping the values of zero. There are a few mathematical problems when calculated values using zeros and negatives, and that is because they don’t necessarily have a direct correlating value to scientific terms. These problems would include that of the imaginary and the undefined: an imaginary number is encountered when calculating the square-root of a negative number; this is not possible using conventional methods of calculations because there is no real number that can multiplied together to result in a negative number, so the solution is ‘I’, or an imaginary number. An undefined number is the result of dividing any integer, besides zero, by zero; zero has no constituents because it has no value so when reversing the equation, using multiplication, the end result is, 0 x 0 = [any integer except 0], which results in a mathematical paradox, or an undefined result. Both instances are related mathematical paradoxes, and both are problems when determining real world analogues to mathematical expressions/equations; but if my theory is correct, they both have a simple solution. Going back to the definition of zero we can really have no reason for expressing zero as nothing, because if the value of zero is nothing, than there can be no vales below zero because I is the end of numeracy. Negative numbers share an opposing value to its positive partner on the other side of the number scale. When explaining the values of least integer to greatest integer given the numbers -1, 2,-6, 1, and 6, you would write -6, -1, 1, 2, and 6, but in real life there are so many examples of opposing objects, of equal characteristics but completely opposite values, but both still exhibiting existence. The conflict of negative values and their relevancy can be found in many forms of mathematical equations like in determining constraints in inequalities when discovering maximum values in algebra. It’s a true mystery of why this problem can’t be solved, but why it exists to begin with is simple: Numbers are infinite when talking about math, this means that there is no end, and since there is no end people ran into problems; the first was the fact that arithmetic was pronounced easier when using physical representations to determine their values so they started using a form of primitive graphs, but had a few troubles on the way, since numbers are infinite one cannot determine a middle value for making greater than or less than assumptions, and so the resulting values were that of negative values. The second problem was that like the last problem, the people of that time had a few troubles with infinity in the fact that if one has no end, than one has no beginning, and thus, resulting in an opposite numerical system ending up with an infinity of its own. This explains a lot of things that make people so confused when referring to negatives, and should clear up some problems that wouldn’t make sense in the fact of their needing to be solved, when I describe the next step into this theory. Zero is another misunderstood value that has a purpose in which it describes another result instead of its true value, which is neutrality. The today version is defined as nothing, which is the synonym for non-existent, which is then defined as not part of the space that is being described, which does not equal to zero. These correction of number values are simple changes that can make generalizations in mathematics the simplest thing to do. The changes to be made to negatives is that negatives should be described as an opposite of positive values not as infinite real numbers with an actual analogous substance in reality: This means that numbers on a number line should never have direct analogues to reality, they should simply be treated as changes in values; positive numbers are a specific number to increase a given number by, which is zero, and negatives represent that numbers decrease in value. This correction will help people differentiate between difference graphs, which contain negatives for determining differences, and analogous graphs, which, in order to create two infinitely decreasing/increasing values, contain a spectrum of decimals with values forever decreasing, infinitesimal values, (make neutral equal to one or any number between the whole number just above it and the whole number just below it.) The changes to the value of zero are a bit complicated: First, zero is no longer a value for nothing, because the term for that is “undefined coordinate” when referring to a graph; the value of zero is a neutral change, (which would work out with the changes to the negative values on a graph because in a difference graph, the value for change would be a neutral change, so it stays the same, and a analogous graph would work because for it to be analogous, the value would have to be positive so no matter how close to zero the extremes can get, they won’t reach it.) The second change would be to fix the problem with imaginary numbers, and this can be done simply by changing zero from just the open-ended variable of neutrality, to being a set of pre-determined numbers with the values stretched on maximum ends of the graph whose values are between that of negative zero and positive zero. These number dimensions are referred to as allonumeracal calculations because they contain a varying number of neutral values with opposing characteristics to that of isonumeracal calculations of only one universal neutral variable that is zero. Making allonumerals and isonumerals accepted terms when distinguishing between positive, negative, and, the now, neutral values of everyday mathematical equations would ultimately open a whole new dimension of numbers and their interpretations that can be explained and interpreted with a better understanding of future forms of dimensional and axial manipulation, not achieved by normal calculus, algebra, trigonometry, or geometry. This takes us to the next steep in the reasoning behind allonumerals. Imaginary numbers are now computable with allonumerals and undefined values can now be defined if the zero expressed as a universal value of neutral space is a variable for an allonumeracal expression. The next step is computing dimensions from a smaller analogous dimension, where perspective is limited. Because allonumerals manipulate the axis and distort the way they are perceived to the dimensional space around them, they are the perfect mathematical analogue to an extra-dimension beyond our own. The explanation for this is simple; take the 0th - dimension that is represented by the single point zero. There is no dimension of characterization and no point greater than that of zero so the value stays as it is in a universe governed by isonumeracal principles. Now normally, the transition from this dimension to the next is impossible because there is nothing beyond zero, but according to the principles defined when that particular universe is allonumeracal, then the zero becomes a neutral variable, or absolute variable, to anything that resides within that area of dimension meaning anything from the absolute values of negative infinity to positive infinity, creating the Wong-Zephyr Bulge which is the result of a defined neutral value that exceeds the principles not allowed with regular, isonumeracal principles. The Wong-Zephyr Bulge is more defined in increasing dimensions of characterization and areas where the absolute neutral values are defined by each axis’ ,“rule of zephyr”, stating what the parameters are for the resulting bulges based on allonumeracal principles. You can see the bulge clearly on a 1-D line that is allonumeracal when the bending bulge is negated because of the exclusion of neutral values. This exclusion of neutral values is more accurate in creating a valid representation of dimensional transition based on allonumerals. The exclusion can informally be called the “hole effect” or “chaos transition” because it describes the events that occur as a result of the replacement of the isonumeracal values relative to the position of +0 and -0 thus creating a plane where dimensional leap occurs, thus, transferring over to the next dimension.

The Chronic Paradox
Albert Einstein was an incredible philosopher; a 'supergenius', as portrayed by the bulk of the scientific community. His contributions to the rationalization of reality, (relativity), were some of the most astonishing leaps in the eventual development of nuclear energy, and marked the start of the information age.

Justin's Domain: Introduction to Me
Greetings, from the domain of fame, home of a man formally known as Justin Wong. Just playn' with all of the nerdy crap this page is unfathumly dominated, and overrun with. Initially, if it is of your interest, this nonsense is present only for the sake of creating depth into my overall introduction. I try to speculate openly, for instance, if the question of life was asked, I would answer, "I am a being with a gift; a relatively smart creature, riddled with the maze of life given from an undeterminable force's generosity, mostly associated with the popular god, as portrayed by many, present-day conflicting religions, to provide the growing intellectual supercortex of any one mind, a sense of security, therefore, providing meaningful balance in completing daily 'obligations', as to not officially wind up as a vicious medial-induced psychopath associated with one's intolerance controlled by his/her mental stability, focus, moral polarity, ethical balance, and overall functionality of their medulaoblingotta. According to this age{of medicinal knowledge}'s understanding of cerebral structural stability, as it were, the initial assumption would be the damage causing the, again, non-ethical medial induced psychopathic behavior could be indirectly caused by a dramatic change in the niche or habitat of one could corrupt the polarity of the mind's basic infantile moralities, therefore, leading to instinct-based rational-irrational shifts in the brain causing him/her to loose the evolutionary integrity of their cerebral functions, overall converting one's inner pursuit for meaning, to an aggressive pursuit for survival of primal-basis, ultimately causing unpredictable consequences on the public surrounding his/her lifestyle. This could be the factor behind it, usually taking gradual steps usually taking place in increments of years to decades, but upon thinking of other explanatory solutions I come across an explanation that defies all common knowledge; The increase of average stable I.Q. levels is undoubtedly increasing as the generations pass by, as of comparison between 1960, '70, '80, '90, '00, to the recently approaching 2010. Basing my opinionating on this, I've come to realize that as the average increases the more unstable the brain is, computing the simplest tasks using larger amounts of cranial space and greater cerebral cellular support, (greater amounts of unused brain cells). Upon speculating this, I have hypothesized that because of this instability, the more rash thoughts that would be processed daily which, unlike normal thoughts, change moral balance greatly, but not unwillingly, done by indirect choice, which leads to enormous amounts of knowledge intake, creating what I call the insanely-genius state of mind, able to understand most things that normally would be unobtainable by the morally limited mind expressed by sane individuals in their everyday lives. This has also concluded the time problem associated with the previous studies, because, unlike those studies, this hypothesis directly points toward full mental stability but only lacks moral judgment and is therefore unstable which causes rapid almost instantaneous changes, not slow gradual changes of that of a medial-induced insane person. Clearly my hypothesis is based upon reactions I have endured, and clearly should be disregarded because, I obviously to someone else wouldn't be considered insane. Insanity could also simply be explained as this; an evolutionary ripple to an even more unfathomable type of existence corresponding to great exponentially described leaps in the scale of determining a genius." That was an example of one of my many thoughts. I believe that I could do a couple of great things for mankind when I get older, but as of now, age 15 is just right for getting ready for my years working in the fields of chemistry and astronomy. So far, when it comes to Wikipedia, I haven't begun to contribute that much in terms of new pages for people to look at, but after I'm done refining my magnetite collection of about 1.25MT to thermite and then into a casting mold for pure iron bricks, ready for selling in my store, THEN I will start my Wikipedia contributions. As for now, If your still tuned in, you can read my somewhat comedic story of the Origin of Wongizzle.

Wongizzle Definition and Other Nonsense
Wongizzle /wŏng'"ĭz:l/ is the term chose to describe the Chinese derived last name, 'Wong', which remains the last name of billions of families across the globe. This would include the family of a man by the name of Justin Wong, the soul creator of the word. In short, Wongizzle means absolutely nothing; It is a random mix of the words 'Wong' and 'Shizzle'. The word and its meaning are pointless and shouldn't exist in any discussion involving any subject, whatsoever, in one's average, daily life. In fact, the word is, in an average phrase or sentence, a complete waste of the corresponding consonants and vowels, which contributes to its independent spelling. A guy like Justin Wong must have been high for suggesting such a menacing object. This guy must have been of Caucasian descent for attempting such a feat.

Origin
The previous information isn't necessarily fact, rather, it be flat-out, opinion-based accusations upon the creator of the anomalous word. Straying from opinion, the facts behind the word 'Wongizzle' are a mystery; perhaps Justin just felt like choosing his own nickname in high school because he didn't have one. This disputing explanation covers the basis of common thought, portrayed in the average scholastic environment, passed the grades of the elementary level, (K-6, maybe 7 and 8; before the final transference from junior high[middle school] to early high school).

Problem Solving Efforts
The arguments supporting this explanation are also strong and gain upon even deeper investigations consisting of these basic conditions. Knowing this, we decided to develop a small investigative interest group called the Joined Intellects of Investigating Random Words and their Environmental-Based Decisive Factors, (The JIIRWE-BDF of Virginia). Using our combined efforts among the JIIRWE-BDF, we, at first, decided to scramble together ideas across our Table of Brainstorming, just recently designed, to try to pull out from deepest depths of our combined brainpowers, ( = an I.Q. of almost twice of that of present day star, Paris Hilton [aprox. a positive 67]), to try and figure out an easier club name. I had suggested that the group be temporarily dubbed, Demonstrative Intellectuals Maintained by Words Identified by their Troubling Meanings to Easy-going Natives, (The DIMWIT MEN). Reasons behind my claim are because of the conflicting reasoning of the native folk that would occasionally tune into the confines of our organization to decide on, for instance, if they would like to join us on our conquest; The man, because of the lingering factor, (in this case, 'confusing word'), which led to his decision of joining the club, he would forget the name or change his mind on joining because the similarity of the confusing word, and the, now, confusing club name he has to remember, ultimately reducing the chances of him joining our club, further limiting our brainpower used to combat our public-based, widespread confusion and maybe later, hysteria. This, of coarse, was lingering in the back of my mind for some time, as it shouldn't be ignored due to the compiling evidence backing this reasoning that our club's meaning and name form a giant, overall oxy-moronic obstacle, blocking our way to success, up. After pondering for months, we had finally nicknamed it 'The Dimwitmen Club', as the group had accepted my change-of-name proposal.

Solution To Wongizzle Crisis of 2006
So as of successfully tackling our first problem, we got back on track, and started up on our original problem which ultimately formulated our 'colio club of chaos', (contributed by AntagonisticHg and SilverousMudslideN121, codenamed for secrecy); To discover the reasoning behind Justin Wong creating 'Wongizzle' without providing an adequate explanation to the whereabouts of its origin. Challenging as it be, We formulated a couple of experiments based on our suggested psychologically unstable environment, high school, and found the results quite shocking. The test data accurately depicts that we are dumba**es for even thinking about going through all of this because of a stupid little nickname laid down by Justin Wong, (for himself), because he felt like it. This, unfortunately, was our original assumption to the whereabouts of Wongizzle's origin, Which therefore confirms the testimony of Justin Wong, himself, obtained when one of us ran into him and dropped his notes on the experiment, which was then discovered by Justin and read. His reaction and further testimonial opinionating based on our actions to perform the test, later became our club modo, (as well as the resolution of the Wongizzle mix-up), which was, 'You guys are complete dumba**es! You expect me to believe you went through all of this to figure why I made my nickname. God, you f***ing morons! Its a nickname I made in the fourth grade because I felt like it...'.

Official Conclusion: Wongizzle Origin
In conclusion, we feel that we have finally laid to rest, the mystery of Wongizzle and, in turn, formulated our new club, 'The Dumba**es'. Thank you for your, probably divided, attention in our explanation of the word Wongizzle.