Energy implies and requires the pre-existence of space and time (energy being the capacity to do work, i.e. to alter some spatial configuration in time); it therefore cannot be something that pre-exists them.

That said, you might be interested in Christopher Langan's ToE. As with other "maverick" ToEs (like William James Sidis') he has something that's reminiscent of your "changing density" idea - e.g. that the "expansion" of the universe is only apparent, that something is conserved in some sense. The English occultist Aleister Crowley put it like this: "resolved images, dilated presentation." The symbol of Ouroboros (snake eating its tail) probably represents archaic intuitions along these lines.

The second law of physics states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Your model is consistent with an increase of entropy, since it expresses change, even if your universe is fixed in size, or in some way.

Where it departs from physics is, for entropy to increase, it needs to absorb energy. The second law is why heat flows from hot toward cold. This direction of energy is driven by the needs of entropy. It heat flow supplies energy to increase the entropy, which tends to be higher in hot spaces and less in colder spaces.

The energy needs, as points out, based on the second law, implies parallel changes in the potential of the matter; decreases, as the entropy increase, and your universe changes. The universe has to start at higher potential or change cannot occur and still allow the second law to be valid. There is a sense of direction driven by potential energy.

Your model would work if increases in entropy in one place, were balanced by decreases in entropy in other places, so change can occur, but with no net change in entropy. But that violates the second law. If entropy net increases ,energy potential has to net decrease. Models with beginning and end do so to make sure and energy and entropy add up.

My theory treats energy and matter as the same thing so i use the word energy in that sense, and of course the current theories say that but im asking that the Universe is a chemical reaction that was not created and wont be destroyed for me time exists but just a a tool of calculus not as a fundamental real "thing", i'm saying that the simplest way of looking at the universe is to see it as a bunch of stuff(energy, matter, dark energy, dark matter) that changes its density in an infinite loop fashion

What my theory says is that the Universe is cyclic so entropy will increase but then everything becomes denser and entropy decreases, is like a chemical reaction of course entropy decreases in some parts of the Universe but what i have said is how the Universe acts as a whole.

So i wanted to know if you can find something in my "theory" that is not aligned with physics — Eugenio Ullauri

Physic as a science is based on provable facts. Your "theory", however, is based in speculation.That is inconsistent with physics.