Why hasn't the vacuum equalizer pulled away gravity?

Most likely we were spread near the start dust early, and the stars are separ5ated by gravitons. The other possibility is that the gravitational field has petered out to the Nyquist noise and stopped phase equalization. But I doubt it. If gravity petered out on its own then we would not be part of the galaxy. The gavitons are very light, very sparse and have very long fields and the positive loop is highly curled. It would not take much of them to contains gravity above Nyquist. The planets were long ago phase equalized by motion, and their fields are stable.

The entire theory is based on simple assumptions. We know Shannon encoding is maximum entropy. We know that any simpler three state sampler will encode to the Pauli limit, and that sampling can happen anywhere as long as sampler are not overlapping.  Physicists have made the mistake of introducing axis of simultaneity first, do it last.

My break thru was fining the optimum congestion for economics, and I do not think I was the first one there.  But combining it with the Pauli principle and Nyquist was the great simplification. Those two then set the quantization ratios without difficult group theory. The other result was that the standard model is not yet complete, it is being coded by the vacuum. So we can use the compact version, predicted by Shannon plus Pauli,  and simplify from there by understanding sparsity.

This is a few years old.  Previous work, much by me, pointed out that Shannon was fundamental to neuroscience, economics and now physics.  I have noticed the work advance along these lines, me pushing it along with this blog.

Careful readers 0f this blog know I have been following Kling and Patterns of sustainability in trade and economics.  Jim Hamilton's two peak theory in economics.  I have been looking at young economists work with queuing thoery (this model is). These were all close to the relationship between Nyquist and Pauli, which was key.

Then there was wide ranging discussion about whether we are a simulation or sampled data system.  The physics and economics community, and the neuroscientists are pushing along this same line of though as we speak.  I just got to this point first, and should get the credit.

Take this principle, for example:

 Replace wavelength with number quantization levels. Mass with 1/3 the number quantization levels times M. C with the Pauli rate. h with Nyquist uncertainty, and it works. That is essentially how I compute sample frequency for quantum systems, except I use SNR, which is the mass ratio in the system. That then gives me sample frequency relative to Nyquist frequency.
Or this one:

 That is the Pauli rate in samples per second, and tells me how many Pauli samples happen along a moving wave.  Mass is simple the number wavelengths per unit of mass.  The combination is the energy in delta phase/sample. And thus, constant phase per sample is force. The trick, or discovery here, is that the Pauli rate sets the quantization levels and number of samples relative to Nyquist. From there we know the Nyquist layer sits below Higgs, all the models of physics are easily handled.

So we get a much more fundamental result. Mass is  number samples, velocity is number samples squared. Energy is number of samples cubed. Force is the phase shift in a wavelength, and makes the sample rates observable in some dimension of simultaneity.

And the final thing was discovering the difference between sparse and dense systems. So, in our world, understanding magnetism at the compact level gives me a good estimate of the electron at sparsity. Sparsity and density is very key, it gives us dimensionality for space and time. In fact, the much more accurate measure in space is measured wavelength of a region. Astrophysicists should be focused on that. Non compact systems have sparsity and that gives us the illusion of directionality.  So, start with the compact, compute that, then add in kinetic energy along whatever axis of sparsity (simultaneity)  you need.  Everything is much simplified.

We do not have to worry about discrete vs analog formula because however the vacuum does it, it can always be modelled as a Nyquist to whatever precision one thinks works.