This should probably be on the physics forum (or NQSci.), but....

I'll begin at the end.
[Hey, cool! Now I see how your post works (...that I can't cut n' paste from it)].

So you end with acceleration due to getting our mass closer to the quasers?
I think observations show their getting farther away.
But that could still be due to expansion from the original explosion, I guess.

There's a couple of points early on in your idea that are open to discussion, i.e. "the center," and "explosion;" but I'll respond more generally based on your statement, 'It makes no sense logically or common sense-wise; so I'm gonna stick with what's known'.

Hey, even relativity is counter-intuitive.

Overall I'd say it's fairly impossible to construct a viable model based on 3-dimensional, inside the box vs. outside the box, kind of thinking.

If you think of our familiar spacetime as being only one dimension, and then think of the "Forces" as being other dimensions, intercalating in a fractal manner with "our" dimension; then you'll get beyond problems like "the "center" of the universe being in every direction that you can look."

Hey! Google "fractals" for a beautiful little journey.
...or try "anti deSitter space"
for a look at higher dimensional spaces

...and there's books like,

The landscape of theoretical physics : a global view : from point particles to the brane world and beyond in search of a unifying principle/ by Matej Pavsic.

Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale : contemporary theories in quantum gravity / edited by....

Parallel worlds : a journey through creation, higher dimensions, and the future of the cosmos / Michio Kaku.

Also I'd suggest you browse back through some of the different topics on the Physics Forum. There is some great stuff!

I'd also love to get your fresh perspective on some of the Climate Change Forum topics.
For instance:

That is why the oceans seem so important to me. If we're going to "invest" in something to soak up CO2, why not put it where the byproduct would be food. Maybe I'm too optimistic about the oceans ability to soak up CO2, but isn't it orders of magnitude greater than anything we could produce?
-Converting CO2 to fuel #20702

It sounds as if someone could make a lot of money sequestering CO2 in this way.
Well, I'm trying to say that this process (in general) might be better at saving the planet than just cutting CO2 emissions (though that's important too).
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21338

Overall, my thought is that it'd be easier to soak up CO2 rather than cut emissions; and we'd be increasing our food supply and net diversity at the same time.
p.s. ...cutting emissions is also good,'ll be too slow; look at the numbers.
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21470

It's a complex problem, and there are lots of "positions" with their advocates; but that makes it more fun!

Keep on keepin' on....

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.