You are mentioning the Big Crunch idea, Elena, which is logical in one way, but not in another way.
The Big Crunch is great in that it delivers a complete mechanical perspective, one of "what goes in must come out", and "what goes out must come back," etcetera.
However, there is no explanation how this got set up. As such it is almost complete and yet the missing point undermines the model tremendously.
--
With the Big Bang we embrace the notion that matter first came about. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no matter. This then excludes the idea that there could have been multiple Big Bangs because it requires that there is no matter prior to the occurrence. Once there is matter, there cannot be an additional Big Bang.
You may accept the idea that matter can still come about in different manners, but the word Big Bang cannot be applied to that.
I don't mind if matter can still get created today in some spots in the universe. Fine with me. But I cannot call that a Big Bang.
--
The flaw in the Big Bang (Lambda-CDM) model is easy to show, but I need to use several words for it.
The oldest data we have is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. There is no older data.
Then, using the CMBR data, scientists calculate back how matter could have come about. That is where the flaw is taking place. It is a modeling flaw.
There are two different ways to look how far back we can go in this model, and I hope this makes it easy to see what mistake these physicists are making.
The first is space-based. If we fold space as many times as possible, then we can indeed end up in a zero position, right in the center of everything we started out with.
The second way is energy-based. If we fold energy as many times as possible, then we can never end up in a zero position. Energy, whether material or immaterial, will not allow us to turn all of this into a zero position.
That would be like going to the laundry basket and folding all laundry so many times that all laundry became a speck of concentrated laundry material. Obviously, that is nonsense, not possible.
The question therefore is what it is that we hold in our minds for the materialization process.
Did matter appear like God creating creation out of Nothing, which would mean that science starts out as a religion, which would be horrible of course?
Or did matter appear from something real, like immaterial energy? If so, this would mean that we have an origin for matter and at the same time we know nothing about that origin other than its ability to produce the results. Yet the results are real, and so the origin, whatever it was, will also have been real.
I hope I made the structural flaw visible this way. Calculating everything back toward a very unlikely beginning is a mechanical flaw.
In an analogy, I use a Cyclops.
Everything about the Lambda-CDM Big Bang model is correct -- hair, nose, chin, ears, cheeks, mouth -- yet there is just a single eye in that face. That is the flaw.
We can think Cyclopes are real, but as scientists we should not accept that. We cannot unify everything into one Eye, one miraculous beginning.
The Big Bang has to be made real, so we end up with a mechanical process that must contain the disconnect in the process itself.
I have also envisioned this as scientists missing a step in the process. I liken it to making a cake as follows:
1. Get cake particles
2. Put in oven
3. Done
In reality it is:
1. Get cake ingredients
2. Mix into batter
3. Put batter in oven
4. Done
Physicists are not incorporating all scientific steps to get to the resulting outcomes. They are melding two steps into one step and then scratch their heads.
Thank you for asking this very good question, Elena.
