The idea of a discrete vacuum is not crank

It is simply a realization of a guiding theory. Any systematic theory of particles can be reconstructed as a sampled data problem.

This is the basics of quantum theory and relativity both.  The calculus of infinite limits is a symbolic grammar and holds the irrational constants as symbols.  But at the end of the day, both the physicist and vacuum have to put rational integer fractions down as their best approximation.  Placing all of physics into the sampled data realm, from the start,  is as real and valid as any other approach.

Minimal redundancy has its counter parts in regular physics. All of physics really boils down to equations of sphere density. The theory of groups is basically the theory of finite spectra with band gaps.  Degrees of freedom is all throughout physics in field separation and in  the Stokes, Green and generalized dimension reduction.

The only hole in the theory is the question of what lies between tangent spheres, it leaves that unanswered and that makes it the theory of almost everything. Even I admit that the unit sphere is likely the oval ellipsoid, at least. But that problem holds across the physics community in one form or another.

What nature does is eventually local wave interaction of finite order, there is no way to avoid that conclusion. The existence of the null is a necessity in any finite description of nature. The  theory of the discrete vacuum is a restatement of everything already done in physics.  The theory of sphere packing is just a restatement of spectral separation in a spherical process.

I admit to being a less than perfect mathematician, but the fundamentals still hold. And I am not the first, discrete units of vacuum hold for all of the theories, from strings to multi-pointed units of vacuum chunks to theories of groups.  All of them boil down to a discrete vacuum. Pauli, Heisenberg, Planck would all say, yea, sure; incomplete but the right approach.  What makes this different from string theory, for example, is my use of the finite log rather than strings of finite vibration modes.

Discrete theory even handles gravity expansion based on the simple idea that gravity has one degree of freedom while visible light has spiral.  That makes gravity expand radially faster than light even though their sample rates (read velocity)  are equal.

Even I use occasionaly calculus to narrow down the range of solutions, it is in the sqrt(5) and sqrt(2). It is most of Lagrange approximation theory. Even my sphere model is valid only in the limit. Shannon theory relies on limits to infinity. But these are helpers, not fundamental.