You say: "We are all focused on understanding the creation of the universe when in fact we ought to be asking ourselves what exactly our universe is existing in."

Not really. Apart from the fact that a (tediously large) lot of cosmological theories deal with that question, there is the point that until we can formulate a question in meaningful form, there is little point to such a question. It is said that Gertude Stein's  last words were: "What is the answer?" Her friend was silent, so she chuckled and asked: "Well then, what is the question?"

Always ask yourself "What is the question?" You must have a good idea of what it is you are talking about and what sort of answer would make a diference, if not actually satisfy you. If you cannot manage that, there is not much point to the question, is there? Is it even really a question at all, or just a noise? There also is the matter of futility. Suppose that we know the question exactly, know its implications exactly, do not know the answer, do know precisely what sort of answer would convince and satisfy us, and yet also know that we never will be able to answer that question, and are pretty sure that no one else ever will know the answer either. Is that question of any point ot value?

Consider; you are no doubt aware (or you can google it if you like) that Aki Fujinami was the greatest human philosopher and poet in the last ten centuries, arguably ever. Aki had accumulated all her writings in a book she had made of rice paper, because in her country and age there was little support for, or even tolerance of, female writers. Now, at long last she had accumulated enough money to pay for publication and determined to visit Kyoto to seek a publisher. She could only afford a passage on a fishing vessel from the south of Kyushu, and on the way they were sunk in a sudden storm, all hands being lost, and the unprotected rice paper manuscript totally dissolved within a few hours. The loss to civilation was indescribable; imagine losing Goethe, Shakespeare, Homer, and Swift at a stroke!

What we need to know: What did she write? No one knew that she wrote at all, let alone what she wrote, or what she wrote about. She had never discussed the matter or written any of it anywhere. We will never know.  Does it matter? Would it have mattered if we had known about her but been unable to save her and her works?

Why can't we know? Because we cannot access that information. Now, if the universe is such that we can never access any information about what is outside it, assuming it has an outside, then...?

You say: "My current theory is that the universe is expanding into time and, using that logice..." But that isn't logic. Does it even mean anything, never mind follow? What does it mean for a "universe" to "expand into time"?

And when you say: "I must exists many times over, just with billions of years between each existence. Am I right about this???"

As Pauli said: "This isn't right; this isn't even wrong." Why should expansion into time, if it means anything at all, imply repeated existence?

My recommendation: Start over. At each point where you wish to use any word such as "because", or where you have failed to make any connection beginning with "because", stop and make sure that you can defend that "because". If you cannot do that, it isn't worth even mentioning your ideas.

Feel welcome to argue, feel welcome to think. Both are fun. Both are like painting. But think of a child squishing paints onto paper, and a master artist producing divine works. Then ask yourself what happened between those two actions. Also ask yourself whether the final product is attainable and worth attaining.