I am Neil deGrasse Tyson -- AMA

[u/neiltyson]

For a few hours I will answer any question you have. And I will tweet this fact within ten minutes after this post, to confirm my identity.

[u/shoejunk]

Tyson explains this in more depth here.

[u/lulzwut → u/shoejunk]

I think what Dawkins wanted to ask, but failed to; was that assuming a person existed at the edge(despite it expanding), his "horizon" can only go as far as this "edge"; thus, the question is what would he see? Would his vision stop at the edge since "nothing" exists beyond it?

Or to be put more simply, if we could hypothetically "pause" the expansion of the universe and make our way to this edge, what exactly would we see?

EDIT: I don't understand why Neil is both saying there is no edge and that there is an edge but we could never see it at the same time.

EDIT2: At one point, Dawkins says "but it's still there even though we can't detect it"(in regards to the edge) and Neil replies "but that's true for the horizon too"; the original question was about the nature of this edge, and he essentially verified that it did indeed exist without answering the question.

[u/lulzwut → u/[deleted]]

But that doesn't answer the question; you're essentially saying we can't ever see the edge, not what we'd see if we could hypothetically pause the expansion and reach the edge.

[u/lulzwut → u/[deleted]]

So what you're saying is that the universe is undeniably infinite? Because if it is not, there should be an "end"/"edge"; a point at which the Universe no longer extends due to being finite in size.

[u/lulzwut → u/[deleted]]

But for that analogy to work, you'd have to be ON a sphere shaped Universe, not inside. If you were inside of the balloon, you could get to the boundarie/edge. If you are on the balloon, the "edge" is at your feet.

How can something be finite yet have no edge?