Reply to ramparts:

Found from SING’s stellar velocity survey:

NGC 24 levels off at 3kpc, 100km/sec darned good fit for the line after that.

NGC 337 keeps climbing

NGC 1097 good line fit at 220km/sec

NGC 1512 using available data after 3kpc best fit 220km/sec

NGC 1566 190km/sec good fit

NGC 2841 good fit at 320 km/sec

NGC 3551 that’s figure23-4 and fits pretty much right on 200km/sec.

NGC 3627 levels off near 3kpc at 200km/sec being best fit.

NGC 5254 is level between 3 and 14kpc at 180km/sec

NGC 4450 and NGC 4559 are climbing

NGC 4736 has level data between .5 and 2kpc and is pretty much right on 200km/sec

If you plot these v fits you get my figure 23-6 with that 100km/sec velocity quantization

staring you right in the face....

Also above in figure 23-5

UGC385 levels at 310km/sec

NGC 801 levels off at 210km/sec

NGC 7541,2998 appear to be starting to level at 200km/sec (But cuttoff).

I also noticed tight errors bars in the MAJORITY of the cases!! Cool beans!

Quantization at 100km/sec. 200km/sec, 300km/sec is solid (and dark matter is not metric quantization).

By the way that new pde analysis (sent earlier) was done outside individual galaxys: sloan, 2df, Geller however does bulk galaxy COM z so I can't do that math in that case. I wrote an e-mail once to sloan asking them to take individial spiral galaxy crossectional doppler (as SINGs, does), they didn't reply.

In any case this is all fine and dandy but the icing on the cake is figures 23-7, 23-8, 23-9.

The Doppler asymptotes appear to go to single (flat) values. The metric quantization appears to be exact!!!!

So just use a generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation. With the general covariance comes the metric,

with the Dirac equation comes the metric quantization. Makes sense.

Reply, again, to ramparts:

In that regard he asked me about the math (I guess that what he was asking me):.

The most succinct explanation is to

instead of deriving the Dirac equation (as Dirac did)from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 he should have derived it from:

ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j). [note E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 is equivalent to the special (Minkowski metric, flat space-time) case ds^2=-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2+c^2dt^2] of this more general equation.

In any case assume a point source so diagonalize to ds^2=sum(g_iidx^ids^i).

Multiply both sides by m^2c^2/ds^2 .

Use Dirac’s linearization step (sqr(gxx)axdx+sqr(gyy)aydy+sqr(gzz)azdz)^2=gxxdx^2+gyydy^2+gzzdz^2. (he instead used the trivial gii= -1,-1,-1,1 here). Define psi from pxpsi=-idpsi/dx.

Plug this all in together to get the new generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation

sqr(g11)axdpsi/dx+sqr(g22)aydpsi/dy+sqr(g33)azdpsi/dz+sqr(g44)Bdpsi/dt=wpsi.

(My eq.1.9, see deeper derivation of done in ch.1)

Deriving the Dirac equation from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 restricts you to flat space, causing you to have to add gauges, renormalization, one pathology on top of another. You get the qed precision, strong interaction, etc directly if you do it that most general way(see chp.3,

http://davidmaker.com)of keeping the possibility of nontrivial gijs..

I noticed a love for these pathologies by one an all (especially boston beans) in this dark matter discussion.

But this junk has stopped the progress of theoretical physics for about 30 years, (since the SM and its minimal SS extension were finally completed). There is nothing to love in that pathology stuff, plenty to be repeled by. Hostility to this mainstream pathology comes easy: it had better or we are never going pull ourselves out of this rut.

(thus explaining where I am coming from; why I am the way I am)

Reply to deuterium and nonbaryonic component:

Since the metric quantization gives the high halo stellar speeds and light bending we can once again use neutrinos to provide the nonbaryonic mass component mr deuterium mentioned. They don't have to hang around galaxies anymore.

(Neutrinos were ruled out in past years because they can not be held in a galaxy gravity well).

Also bnl 100GeV gold-gold collisions gave a liquid equation of state, Van der Waals type hard shell(the rH in my eq.1.9), so the big bang (or big rebound in this case) MUST occur at about 60million km radius(so no big bang from a point), just enough volume (for ~1Fermi center to center baryon separation) to contain these 10^81 hard shell baryons. So this is supernovae physics where we know most of the energy is given off as neutrinos, your NONbaryonic component.

My own final reply

My advice to anyone who also wants to get theoretical physics moving again is to take a course in Quantum Electrodynamics at their local university or just sit in on one.

But this time actually think!

Especially question why we should start out the derivation of the Dirac equation (the core equation of QED) with E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 instead of the metric formulation ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j) which is the general case. By going the less general route they have made it so adhoc gauges, renormalization , free parameters,,etc..,etc., (see figure 3-1) must be added (to correct that booboo) thereby confusing, stopping theoretical physics dead in its tracks.