Big Bang/Big Crunch -- nothing new there. The outcome depends on the mass density of the Universe, about which there is much controversy and no conclusive data... but the research along those pathways is generally called "the missing mass problem".

yes

No, I think you're confusing yourself... and by the way, now I know what Davin means about all the quote marks and the resemblance to Dr. Evil. (Please tell me that the Scott Evil who posts here is not your son!)

no and no

Otherwise, the paragraph I just quoted makes no sense. Have you ever studied classical Newtonian physics? Do you know the difference between effect and cause? In other words: what causes motion in your "model"?

yes

Then according to this model our universe is a "dipole" oscillation. Similar "dipole" oscillation happens in a "photon" of light.
Since the universe is expanding and accelerating it will continue to do so until the mass reaches the "pole" point where it compresses into a singularity and then explodes, since it is a "dipole" process, the mass will be directed towards the other "pole" where the process repeats and the cycle continues.

Self-contradictory. "Expanding and accelerating" implies a decreasing density, in all directions (look up the word isotropy, please).

no and ok

What you seem to be describing is matter distribution expanding through space, directed somehow (!?!) to a specific destination where everything falls back together, then bounces, retracing its paths back to some specific origin.

yes

What you fail to understand (among many things) is that space itself is expanding, omnidirectionally, carrying the galaxies with it. There is neither a point of origin nor a destination. Apparently you're the only person with an interest in the topic who hasn't read a single book about it, and hasn't run across either the "raisins in the bread" or the "dots on a balloon" analogy.

If space is expanding, then it must have started somewhere and must end somewhere.

"Now then... what do you mean by Similar "dipole" oscillation happens in a "photon" of light?

Photons have a polarity of oscillation, that is a vector between two poles as it were.

The "speed" of light is not "constant". What is constant is the "acceleration" of photons. That means that faster than light "speed" is possible.

This sounds something like the premise underlying the "universe" created by Vernor Vinge for A Fire in the Deep and its prequel. In other words, in Vinge's stories the assumption that all constants of physics are isotropic at all directions and distances is mistaken -- understandably, based on obervations restricted to local conditions.
You have not, however, explained your terms even as well a Vinge did in his work of obvious fiction. Putting yours in quotes serves but to confuse them further.

Even the photons must accelerate before attaining their final speed.

I will try to stay away from "quotes".

All "fields" (electronic, magnetic, gravitational, etc.) are variations of the fundamental "space/mass" combinations that have different densities, frequencies, and vector relationships to each other

"Mazeltov! You've "predicted" the universe as we already know it, derived by Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein (among many others), all of whom arrived at their conclusions through rigorous mathematics which -- tah daah! -- all have been found to be verifiable by empirical observation!"

yes

Can you reduce their work to the action of two fundamental forces?

yes

There is the combination of two "fundamental forces" involved in every atomic and sub atomic "particle".

Which two? Kinetic and potential? Polar and dipolar? Maybe bipolar is closer to the truth...

Kinetic and potential

In summary:
What you have is not a model, but an analogy.* In the world of modern physics "model" implies mathematical modelling, and "prediction" comes from the math, not from some blue-sky guessing. Your analogy makes sense to you because you thought of it. It makes sense to no one else because you are neither articulate enough to express it convincingly in non-mathematical language (see Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe for an example of articulation of theory using metaphor), nor mathematically inclined enough to render it for real peer review.
Which, regrettably, does not even get you to the level of pseudoscience. This is non-science, and nonsense.
[* -- which is also SDAI's problem, and Decartes' before him]

The math part is missing from here on purpose, I was trying to improve my articulation skill and you have been an immense help. Thank you for the honest criticism and exchange of thoughts.

Johannes