My Dark Matter Theory

reply to post by Ionized


Ok you seem to have a lot to offer to our theory of dark matter. I could go through all of the plasma links you gave me but that would take a very long time so could you just quickly summarize how plasma relates to dark matter? Again I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything I just want to get a general idea because I really know nothing about plasma.

While you are reviewing the plasma posts, I would just remind you that you are off on the wrong track with plasma if you wish to ID the Hawking radiation as related above.

Plasma is not the same thing as what I have described.

The scribe is quite right, I do reduce credibility of my statements by avoiding the use of references and that is unavoidable right now.

All energy, and I am purposefully using the word "all", in our universe is of particle construction. Except in one case, and that is what some are calling black energy. That is a terrible label to put on it for this radiation is pre-particle yet is discrete. It is composed of individual "bodies" and spins. It has no center for it is both a center and a body at the same time.

I am convinced that most who read this will have a very hard time conceiving what science has not yet definitively identified as an entirely new energy concept, yet they will identify it in the coming decade if not before. That is a prediction based on laboratory work using CERN (the large HADRON colider). It is possible to identify it there although there will be confusion about what they have.

These pre-matter entities literally flash into and then out of existence. Hawking radiation is a consequence of that flash. Scribe is correct when he says that black holes (or black bodies, etc) are different than "dark" energy. The pre-matter entities (or black energy sometimes called) flash into existence near absolute zero, and that is why they may be particularly noticed in the vicinity of these large black gravity bodies. As I explained before, collapsed matter has zero electronic revolutions in its atomic structures. These pre-particles can run right through the densest matter with impunity.

It is our calculation that the back ground radiation even in the vacuum (empty) of space that there are 10 free radiation entities per cubic inch. This virtually insures absolute zero can not be reached in any space unit however large or small.

When a collapsed star reaches its maximum condensation, sooner or later, gravity will disrupt the dense electronic structure. The implosion will convert all of its elements back to the basic pre-matter thereby freeing all 100 prototype entities to reform hydrogen in some cases, and in some cases, free the pre-matter entity to take up its free travel in a drift around the central space core.

There is a river of these energy entities flowing between the stars which take them in and give them out. Part of star formation depends upon their presence, and in some cases, stars spew them back out, but stars are not their origin. Emergent energy floods in from outside of the zone of dimensional space, and that is because space itself has a limit horizontally and vertically. Picture a long slender pyramid lying on its side with its thick base at one end and a fine, extruded point toward the opposite end. That roughly approximates a dimensional cross section of space. The space above and below this pyramid on its side is not empty but does not contain space.

Space is pushed and pulled through its upper and lower limits. The push and pull originates at the densest end of the pyramid picture. Such physical pulsations can be referenced by its effects, one of which is space pressure which can be measured someday. The origins of emergent energy flow from force undulations above and below the vertical limits of the space plane.

It is because of these origins that science will eventually learn to recalculate material energy output. Strictly observing energy within the space of the universe will always reference the Einstein equation; however, with pre-matter having its origins outside of the space continuum, this energy is capable of adding to the speed of light by several times. It behaves not in accordance with the material/electronic universe, but in accordance with something called the absolute gravity of a central core about which all galaxies rotate. Hawking radiation references the core and is totally unaware of the effects of linear gravity.

But first, Hawking radiation must be defined further and refined to exclude that which is contributed by the evaporation of the dark gravity bodies. When science finally has sufficiently defined what it is finding, then the work can begin to determine the potential of this energy which is far beyond the imaginations of most conceptual thinkers today; i.e., except for a very few who will break the mystery.

Aronolac

reply to post by Aronolac


Hmmm... you are either of a significantly higher intellectual level than I or you were just not making much sense because most of what I read just went completely over my head.

Now I am not a scientist or anything, but I have made it a habit to research the workings of our universe and I would say I've got a pretty good base knowledge of what goes on, but I barely understood most of the things you were saying.

I did get a few things though.
-Plasma is not the answer. (OK you say that without even looking at the evidence Mr. Plasma has not yet offered)
-Dark Matter is not made up of particles it is made up of unknown bodies that spin. (We have not yet confirmed the existence of dark matter so it is odd that you so confidently state that it is not made up of particles)
-Science has not confirmed anything about dark matter yet.
-Black matter is not a black hole.
-Black matter exists around temperatures of absolute zero with no electrical anything. (Interesting I hadn't heard that before)
-Dark Matter can cause something to go faster than the speed of light. (now we are getting somewhere)
-A full understanding of Dark Matter is beyond anyone.

Ok so there are definitely some facts here that are useful though. My theory earlier was that objects in dark matter are going backwards in time while objects in light matter are going forwards in time, time being a measure of entropy in the universe. You say here dark matter can cause an object to go faster than the speed of light. But what is faster than the speed of light? When measuring speed, when you get over the speed of light, do you just keep getting faster, or is it possible that you are going at a negative speed? If there was such a thing as negative speed, that could mean that an object is going backwards in time, hence the negative speed.

reply to post by Ionized


No worries, Ionized. I was also too quick to jump to conclusions concerning what type of plasma you were referring to. No worries though, I think we're both back on the same page again. I'm still reviewing your links though, there's a lot to read and digest.

There appears to be opposition on some of them though. So my question to you, concerning your response here, is this:

If you are "beyond" defending your science to the opposition and instead favor blind faith and personal review of your findings, why do you come and claim it is the only answer? If you refuse to offer a refutation to those who propose opposition how can you claim to really have the definitive answer?

Plasma cosmology does seem like a real scientific field. However, everything I've been reading concerning it seems to insist that it is a less-developed and still mostly fringe cosmological approach started and mostly (but not soley) carried on by the now deceased Nobel winning engineer/physicist Hannes Alven.

Am I studying the correct thing here?

~ Scribe

Aronolac, you state that all of these theories concerning Hawking Radiation, 'black energy' and your theories on all of this stem from 'brilliant minds' beyond the capacity of any of the foremost physicists, astronomers and generally enlightened thinkers. Yet, Hawking Radiation, was co-discovered by Stephen Hawking, who is one of the most enlightened and brilliant minds of all time.

Now, I - like Wang Tang - am not a scientist of any caliber. However, I am an avid science-fiction reader. And the theories you propose I have seen widely used in science-fiction literature. Granted a good science-fiction writer will base his far-flung synopsis on actual theories being explored during the era of the novel's writing; I still don't believe that modern science accepts your approach for the sole fact that it is still in the realm of science-fiction. Maybe someday science will catch up and actually discover you are right. Like you prophesied, sometime within the decade even.

However, why would you wait? Why would any force wait to reveal such a wondrous advancement towards understanding our universe, and evolution and history and possible future? For a force to willingly wish that humanity remain in a hypothetical dark age - where we're wearing bird masks with fancy stones to dispel disease instead of using antibiotics - seems grossly immoral of your "hidden sources."

Again, just my opinion.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Ionized

 

However, everything I've been reading concerning it seems to insist that it is a less-developed and still mostly fringe cosmological approach started and mostly (but not soley) carried on by the now deceased Nobel winning engineer/physicist Hannes Alven.

Am I studying the correct thing here?

~ Scribe

Sounds like you visited the Wikipedia page, where many battles have been fought years ago to get the proper information displayed. The Big Bang proponents won, and you saw what was left after they removed all valid and current info. That article is a sick joke, meant to dis-inform. There is a rich history in the talk section there. Notice that main contributors to the field, such as Eric Lerner, are banned from even editing the article? Yeah, like I said, some tough battles went on there.

Some good books to check out are "Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, and of course Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven.

Some other web sites:
public.lanl.gov...
www.plasmacosmology.net...

To be honest I just don't care enough anymore to debate this stuff. I feel vindicated for how far it has come already, back in the 90s this stuff was barely known by anyone other than the plasma physicists and a few rogue astrophysicists. Like I said, after spending years fighting with other scientists over this stuff, when the Mainstream is against you, it is a tiring battle. I don't mean to be terse, and provide little information, but it is out there, and I have already given basic info along with other great user contributions by others, in that list of threads I gave earlier. I never claimed it is the one and only correct view, but it is certainly more complete than the gravitationally based, object oriented, static view proposed by the mainstream institutions. The pioneers didn't stop for debate at every corner, they forged ahead, and left the debate and burden of proof to the later generations.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by Ionized


I did begin my search on Wiki, after perusing some of your links. However, I did not just stay there. I just googled "plasma cosmology" and started going down the list site by site. Wiki, actually, is not a biased source though. Unless you are unwilling to trust the Encyclopedia Britannica then Wiki has the same success and failure rate at reporting information.

However, just because one or two people get intellectually attacked does not mean their theory is legitimate and that a vast scientific conspiracy is afoot to undermine their discoveries. It would be impossible to shoehorn the entire scientific community into discrediting a single researcher simply because one researcher disagrees.

I won't say yet whether or not I believe plasma cosmology is effective enough to replace all our notions of cosmological studies or not. I simply haven't done enough research into it. However, I will immediately state that I see a lot of opposition to it, and I hardly believe that leading scientific minds would outright reject a theory without a lot of reasoning for it.

My search continues, and thank you for the book references, I will seek them out.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I don't mean to be insulting, but you are seriously mistaken if you think there is not a vast conspiracy within the academic and journal institutions to keep status-quo knowledge from rapid change. You come off as someone who has never been in the 'trenches' so to speak. There are direct actors in the conspiracy at the top levels, and there are cogs in the machine below who don't have a clue that they are contributing to the erosion of real science.

Let me suggest also studying works by Halton Arp, a good intro into the world of Academic institutional dishonesty is given in his book 'Seeing Red' and 'Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.'

Hubble himself, in the last years of his life, warned against the status-quo interpretations of Redshift and claimed that the institutions are in serious error for following their strict paradigm, that they were ignoring the mounting evidence that the most basic assumptions of the mainstream proponents where in need of revision.

Some further studies that might interest you include scientific paradigms in general, check out a book by Thomas Kuhn titled 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Without an understanding of paradigms and how they change, it is more difficult to see beyond the one you might currently be embracing.

I was once like you, reading Hawkings books and Kip Thorne and all the mainstreamers and their gravitationally based paradigm, thinking they are the greatest minds ever and how mysterious and fascinating the subject of black holes and dark matter are.

Then I discovered that their world is extremely limited, and once I broke through it a vast new paradigm opened up in front of me, one that included electromagnetism and quantum mechanics in the description of universal process.

p.s. Wikipedia is extremely biased when it comes to cosmology. Read the many years worth of talk pages on the plasma cosmology article for a good look into how that place can operate when there is a concerted effort to remove valid information by those who, through their bias, oppose it. This was a very much debated topic at one time, with the mainstreamers claiming they are not operating from bias, ignoring the fact that they view the world through their own fundamental paradigmatic beliefs.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by Wang Tang


Wang Tang, sure, I will try to summarize how Plasma removes the need for dark matter.

In summary, dark matter came about because in the mainstream paradigm based only on gravity as the dominant force, observations of the universe did not match what the mathematically based, theoretical predictions described. One must remember that the Big Bang is a mathematical construct, built first and foremost by the mathematician in an idealized world of imagination, and it is only later compared to observation, and then in fact it is molded around observation when its initial predictions began to fail. Dark matter came in as a way to describe an allegedly unknown force that caused their observations to fail to comply with what their theoretical predictions dictated. This is the opposite of an observational approach: they created the theory, and tried to mold their understanding of the universe around the theory.

Now, imagine instead, that the observations could be explained by simply taking into effect electromagnetic forces along with gravity. Dark matter, a fictitious mathematical construct, goes away all together because it is no longer needed to explain the observations. The observations instead match experiments performed in the laboratory and in near-space environment. Mechanisms no longer require a hidden mysterious force because it can be modeled using knowledge from plasma physics. One of the beautiful things about plasma is that it is self-similar across multiple time and space scales, making observations in laboratory plasmas relevant to much larger scales, through the the use of proven and demonstrated scale invariants.

Starting with observation, we mold the theory. That is the proper way to create a science. The mathematicians tried to mold reality to their theory, the plasma physicists molded theory to observation.

I hope that is a decent summary for you, there is a lot more info in the threads and links given.

I am responding to Wang Tang, Scribe, and Ionized variously below. Thank you.

Wang Tang you said:
Hmmm... you are either of a significantly higher intellectual level than I or you were just not making much sense because most of what I read just went completely over my head.

Now I am not a scientist or anything, but I have made it a habit to research the workings of our universe and I would say I've got a pretty good base knowledge of what goes on, but I barely understood most of the things you were saying.

Aronolac: I seriously doubt I am on any higher level than any of you carrying this thread forward. There are personal differences in make up, but intellect seems to be pretty well the same. So please do not concern yourself with that aspect of these discussions.

First, I do not question that you have good general knowledge about how the universe works. What is new, really new with what I am trying to explain, is that you know only a universe that is materialized in electronic form (mathematical). You know what I mean: atoms, molecules, quarks, electrons, negative and positive charges, and so on down the list of the components of matter.

What has to be done first is to suspend just one way at looking at the universe. To grasp this concept of what I am speaking to is truly radical to the mind of science. No one has yet publicly acknowledged how radical this can be.

The old idea that if something is materialized it is something science can quantify. But guess what? These radiation entities can not be quantified - you can’t count them (although they are discrete)unless they are IN something. The indirection of measurement is real and I can just imagine if a person is brought up to be believe, absolutely believe, that matter has only one way of behaving because of its electronic organization, then that person is going to have one terrible time getting his or her mind around this.

Nonetheless, I am telling you to watch out as you live through the present century (however that may be tallied), you will see a revolution in scientific approach because the thinking has to be so radically adjusted to meet the evidence that will be irrefutable. That is not mine to characterize further as I can not predict the form or the door through which science must approach the cosmic reality of the universe we live in. But I am familiar with the evidence because my interest is how to use it, because I am convinced it can be harnessed if one knows the process by which it flashes into and out of apparent materialization. No other energy in the universe with matter is like this one, and because of that, man should benefit in tremendous ways in using it. But first he has to understand it and then tame it.

TO WANDERING SCRIBE

You wrote:

However, why would you wait [referring to introduction to the public, I believe]? Why would any force wait to reveal such a wondrous advancement towards understanding our universe, and evolution and history and possible future? For a force to willingly wish that humanity remain in a hypothetical dark age - where we're wearing bird masks with fancy stones to dispel disease instead of using antibiotics - seems grossly immoral of your "hidden sources."

Aronolac: Let me tell you this, not so much as an answer about waiting, but for a deeper understanding of human nature. There are several labs in the world which are actually looking at what I am telling you. They are hush-hush, and they call their projects by many different names. Some are very close to finding the basics about this energy but are all missing one vital point about what they are investigating. Because they think it is a type of electronic matter they can not get it to behave with the processes they are attempting to carry out to trap (attract) it. They also need to take a course in humility because they think in a way that prevents their success. I have no wish to enter into their world on their terms. When this hits as one of the great discoveries of man kind, it better be used for everyone, or there will be real concern for the world and what its misuse could mean to it. There is a huge humanitarian aspect to the invention of the process to use it, and I guarantee you, it is usable. But there is no harm in getting to understand it and talking about its potential now, and above all what this concept will do for science. It will free science by forcing it to adopt a universe cosmology that will bring absolutely wonderful inventions to man.

IONIZED, I respond to you next page.

TO IONIZED

You write:
Now, imagine instead, that the observations could be explained by simply taking into effect electromagnetic forces along with gravity. Dark matter, a fictitious mathematical construct, goes away all together because it is no longer needed to explain the observations. The observations instead match experiments performed in the laboratory and in near-space environment. Mechanisms no longer require a hidden mysterious force because it can be modeled using knowledge from plasma physics.

Aronolac: Notice you are reverting back to the idea of electronic matter behavior in your statement above. This radiation spoken to here does not behave as an electromagnetic phenomenon because it is not related. It passes through any and all electromagnetic fields or their causes. It does not introduce or negate electromagnetic fields although you can, if you know how, created a magnetic field by converting this, first, into one of the constituent parts of a material electromagnetic field. But then you no longer have this radiation but a derivative.

The ancestor to material energy is force. The ancestor of matter in not electromagnetism which is an effect not a cause. All physical energy has as its source the metaphysical. Electronic matter has some sort of nucleus which organizes it into a steady state (shattered matter recombines eventually). The radiation I am speaking to has no nucleus in space, it has as its nucleus that which lies outside of space. (See my description of a cross section of space above). Roughly, energy matures in this process:

Force => Emergent Energy => Universe Power. Force is cosmic force which is unquantifiable; it is beyond measurement but it can be organized. Emergent energy is that energy on its way becoming electronic but is not yet electronic. It exists as a unquantifiable radiation. Universe power is material energy in all of its behaviors and in its mathematical quantifiability.

What you have said is quite acceptable from the point of view of universe power. Science needs to understand the process first and learn it better if it wishes to form a unified theory. This will help science to eventually do so and I am sure to the delight of Dr. Einstein who thought he would never see it. Well, where ever he is, it is coming closer to reality because there’s something out there that will bring such a theory much closer.

I will reply to the speed of light question another time. Thank you.

Aronolac

reply to post by Aronolac


Yes, the plasma cosmology remedies our understanding only within the current force/matter paradigm.

What you are talking about describes an even deeper paradigmatic shift, and I certainly have no problem with that, I have always been a supporter of paradigmatic shift if it moves us further into proper understanding of our universe. There are hints that this shift is coming, without a doubt.

I simply had to work within the current paradigm of forces because a deeper understanding of large scale material process was available within that paradigm itself, without yet having to move out of it completely. I was mostly concerned with material flow over very large distances, and the processes that describe self-organization over a broad scale. At these levels of description the electromagnetic view becomes extremely valuable, for now.

Some books for those interested in deeper underlying concepts of force and mass, etc, I recommend reading the historian Max Jammer, his three books titled "Concepts of Force", "Concepts of Mass", "Concepts of Space"


[edit on 19-3-2010 by Ionized]

Thank you Ionized. I agree with your approach and understand that unless you work with this concept for a lot of time, it sure can appear like fiction. However, true life will always be stranger than fiction and this is a good example.

I would like to move on to just one other subject called time. I am going to provide a brief explanation and tie it into this thread as something which is affected by the speed of light.

Universe Power
The Case for Exceeding the Speed of Light

So long as man depends on the explanation that all universe energy is derived by the manipulation of universe power, he will be confined to the speed of about 186,000 miles per second (the standard is 299,792 kilometers /second.). A fellow named Barry Setterfield in 1979 discovered there seems to be a variation in the speed of light since it was first measured in the late 17th century, and that it seems to be decreasing. First, let us examine what that may be about before we examine the larger question about being able to travel faster than the transmission of light.

Part of what I believe (theory) is at work is that the methods being used to provide measurements have experienced an interference with the direct measurement of light. Setterfield went through years of records archived which used 16 methods. My theory is based on the knowledge that points in space are not fixed even though we may call them that because we can not record motion at this distance. Some objects do not belong to our galaxy and are subject to variations in shifts that are not taken into account. For instance, an object may be said to be “x” number of miles from us for calculation purposes supposing that there is no intermediate injection of different motions between us and the object. That does not happen to be true for all measurements.

A red shift or a blue shift is exaggerated by undetected intermediate motion of space. Space is not always a dependable constant proven by the fact different space pressures exist (our instruments are not fine enough to detect it) and that space motion is sometimes in opposition to the one who is measuring the object. This is not so hard to imagine if we looked at two trains on a turnstile. We as observers are standing on one of the turnstiles. We can see the train that is with us, and we can see the parked train a light year away on a different turnstile. The trains themselves are not moving, but the turnstile 1 light year away is moving and so is ours.

Notice, that if I could measure the distance to the train 1 light year away, I would consult my book and read its distance as observed at another time. But today, the turnstile is moving the distant train around and the stadia input distance in my binoculars is set to convert to the speed based on the published constant from the book. However, the turnstile has moved the train away from me (as it turns clockwise), and my turnstile is moving counter clockwise away at the same time, doubling the error of distance for the calculation. This directly affects the light speed calculation by some either minor factor or by some major factor depending on all the circumstances.

Space does the same thing. It exists in alternating-motion elliptical bands much like a phonograph record has bands around the center, so does space organize itself in concentric circles thousands, millions, of light years apart. One has to be exceedingly careful about what object to select for measurements or fall victim to the variable speeds-of-light calculations. I also understand that other kinds of interference is possible such as gravity, quality of telescope lenses, and so forth, but those variances are slight compared to this list of variables found in the record for hundreds of years.

In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
(See: www.wnd.com...)


This problem is germane to the discussion of the speed of light.

Neither God or the Big Bang, whatever theory one may subscribe to, tinkers with the speed of light. That speed is determined by the inherent capacity of light to travel in a straight line keeping its velocity attuned to the records of distance and speed to that object. Vary any of these input numbers and the scientist will measure something in variance to the true speed. But the universe has lanes of pure energy in the form of the abundant and massless radiation entities spoken to earlier. Acceleration beyond the speed of light can be attained IF a theoretical spaceship traveling in and using one of these rivers of energy can reach out and tap a nearby energy lane and super-impose it on the one it is using. It can do this by attracting these energy conduits to itself where it is (one coordinate plus 2 energy lanes) we have been calling black energy or Hawking radiation. Since the transmission of light in those lanes is as they say it is, and the same thing occurs in a nearby network, the sum of the two equals the ultimate value of the speed of transmission of the space ship. It is the “doing” of the chore to tap these lanes that takes all the experimentation time.

Just a brief word about time now.

What makes the subject of time so difficult is that it is determined by analysis rather than as an actual transmission number. Time is a reference unit without a body. We determine its dimensional (how long? how short?) aspects by common agreement of usage. Science uses just one definition of time and that is the constant of light speed - a quantifiable fixture that is quite dependable. However, time has two other and quite real components determined by analysis of the individual observer: psychological duration and value duration. I just want to mention them, not define them. If science uses only the time transmission of light, that is sufficient to examine the physical universe as it is and exists. The other two factors determine a personal sense of time and are metaphysical in their application.

Thank you.
Aronolac

To Aronolac & Ionized

Seems like you're both getting into the deeper mechanisms of your respective theories here now. I'll do my best to keep up, but if I have a lack of responses for a bit it'll be because I'm busy reading, cross-referencing and double-checking your facts and claims.

Admittedly my own grasp of scientific theory is still only layman, so I'll need to educate myself on your alternative theories before I comment on them.

What is plasma?

How is plasma created?

Where is plasma in the universe?

Can plasma be controlled by humans?

What would happen if a human ate some plasma?

Originally posted by Wang Tang
What is plasma?

Plasma is a collection of neutral particles, ionized atoms, free electrons, electric and magnetic fields, that exhibit collective behavior as a complex open system.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
How is plasma created?

See above.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Where is plasma in the universe?

It is estimated that 99% of the visible universe is matter in the plasma state. It can also be found on earth.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Can plasma be controlled by humans?

Yes (hence my talk of all the laboratory experiments..)

Originally posted by Wang Tang
What would happen if a human ate some plasma?

It would burn you.

Please visit, at minimum, some external links like the Los Alamos National Lab page on plasma universe:
public.lanl.gov...

Please visit, at minimum, some external links like the Los Alamos National Lab page on plasma universe:
public.lanl.gov...

Please don't make me visit a site with a white background and yellow font ever again.

reply to post by Wang Tang


You have images turned off or something? It has a dark background image on my end, not white... That site layout stinks regardless of the background, but I figured you would want a credible source, one which contains answers to all the specific questions you asked.

reply to post by Ionized


No my browser is normal so I don't know what it is maybe it's because I'm using Firefox?

As for your answers, they were all helpful except for your first answer:

Plasma is a collection of neutral particles, ionized atoms, free electrons, electric and magnetic fields, that exhibit collective behavior as a complex open system.

This be a description of almost anything in the world? Aren't humans "a collection of neutral particles, ionized atoms, free electrons, electric and magnetic fields, that exhibit a collective behavior..."

I guess I asked too general a question so I got too general an answer so I have a few more questions...

What does plasma do?

Is plasma a living organism like bacteria or fungus?

Does plasma contain energy?

Where does plasma get its energy from?

reply to post by Wang Tang


If you have the time, please check out at least the first video, it will give a good introduction:

Google Video Link

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Ionized]