You want a cosmology which you find acceptable and simple and your method is to simply look at what other people have done or suggested, take the bits you find you like, put them all under the banner of QWC and then proclaim you've got a model/theory which goes where science doesn't.One question, can you state my prime objective and the methodology I use to achieve it?
This is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. Secondly, just because you like something doesn't make it right. Thirdly, picking bits hap-hazardly from other ideas means all your 'results' as determined as axioms, you derive nothing. Every output is an input. A theory doesn't predict the mass of the electron if you have to go out and measure the electron mass to put into your theory and so you picking and choosing such things as "The universe underwent a big crunch before the BB" doesn't mean you've predicted it from something more basic. Einstein used the Einstein Field Equations to show that the universe cannot be static unless very very precise conditions are met, it'll more likely be getting bigger or smaller. Thus the prediction of a non-static universe is obtained from more fundamental assumptions. And fourthly, even if you have all the right outcomes/predictions if you cannot obtain them all from a shorter list of assumptions then you explain none of them. A theory is useful because you get out more predictions than inputs. If not, you might as well forget having a model and simply tabulate all measurements for phenomena, since it'll be just as good a way of describing nature.
Where have you obtained that from? Have you derived it from something or simply made it up?The arena particle is the core of the big crunch, and the corresponding particle at the quantum level is the high density spot. The wave form at both levels is the same and the physics are strikingly similar with only some limiting factors to avoid the catastrophe of infinite regression.
And I love how you didn't respond to any of my points where I pointed out your claims about the BB or mainstream physicists were total BS. Aren't you man enough to admit when you're wrong and a hypocrite for telling other people to read up on something you haven't read up on?