I'm not sure how to interprete it in that sense, or what the math looks like, I have only Roger Penrose saying "the math checks out" to go on.

Sounds like you're asking "is it really getting bigger endlessly and we take a larger distance as the unit value each cycle" and if so, that feels like the wrong kind of question when talking about distance not existing, but I don't know anything deep about it I've only heard him talk about it in interviews.

I don't really get why you can't reason the other way and say if there are photons and light, then there must be frequency, distance and time, therefore energy, and therefore mass. Heck, maybe that is the same reasoning; there, at the place of infinity, is all the energy and mass which ever was in the universe, all in one place. And what do you get when the whole universe is all in one place? A big bang? Transforming from matter to light (via stars burning and eventually Hawking radiation from the last things remaining: black holes) carries all the energy in the universe off into the distance. Where does it go? Off into infinity. If you take infinity as a place that means it all goes to the same place? Then that process is the "collapse" which brings everything together into the same place ready to be turned into matter again? That's my pop-science understanding of his proposal.