Sorry, genep, but I think your understanding of the universe is a little skewed. I'll try to address a few of your statements, even though I am not a PhD physicist.
"According to the red-shift this expansion is close to or perhaps even beyond the speed of light. Thus the need for a Big-Bang."
According to latest observations, our universe is expanding several times the speed of light, and it is not only expanding, the RATE of expansion is increasing. Our universe has been calculated to be 13.7 billion years old. The latest calculations of its current diameter turn out to be 154 billion light years wide. The calculations are based on much more than just red-shift though, such as class 1a supernovas and their 'blink' rates. Reverse this expansion and what do you get? It comes back to a small volume, at least. The inflationary period, soon after the initial Big-Bang, is what is needed to explain the current size and other observations made in the last few years.
"The Universe is an expanding sphere that has no outside, the non-existent future, and no inside, the non-existent past."
The sphere is probably the most accepted shape for the observable universe, but there are other shapes favored by some astronomers, such as the torus or 'donut' shape. Most astronomers/physicists refuse to speculate on what, if anything, lies 'outside' our observable universe because it is thought to be unknowable. This is often interpreted as 'nothing' because it cannot be proven one way or the other. One thing I would like to comment on about the way 'universe' is defined. Physicists often do not make a distinction between 'universe' and 'our observable universe' related to the reasons given above. Many astronomers do, and it causes some confusion. 'Our observable universe' is what astronomers are speaking of when they say it is currently 154 billion light years in diameter. The physicists' 'universe' stretches to infinity in all directions.
Yes, the universe does have a future, most likely a heat-death as it continues to expand and individual stars and galaxies burn up all their nuclear fuel, far, far into the future. Yes, you are 'inside' the universe now. Our observable universe does have a beginning, and thus, a past, beginning with the Big-Bang of course. I can't speculate on the universe at large, other than to say some physicists consider it to contain 'all that there is' and time began with the Big-Bang. Some physicists think there could be many 'bubble' universes similar to our own spread out within the universe at large. The problem is proof of such a concept. String Theorists think there may be 'hidden' universes in different dimensions than our own, but occupying the same 'space'. The new Large Hedron Collider is to search for such hidden dimensions when it is completed.
"On this expanding sphere the observer is ALWAYS at the center of the universe even though it has no center, the past. Not only is the observer always at the center of the universe, but this center has to be at the expanding edge of the universe which the observer always sees far - far away moving away close to or perhaps even beyond the speed of light."
Well, there is some question about this long-accepted theory that the universe 'has no center'. Current observations indicate that we may well indeed be near the center of the observable universe. Long accepted theory states that on large scales, the universe is homogenous, that matter and galaxies are evenly distributed throughout the universe, so it dosen't make any difference where in the universe you observe from, it always looks the same. Recent observations indicate matter and galaxies are much more concentrated in our neck of the woods, so we may very well BE near the center of OUR observable universe. Don't know if the previous helps or confuses more, but it is a short synopsis according to MY limited understanding.
