Depends on what one means by finite, and I don’t think Launius’ expression works well when trying to invoke a metaphor of a sphere without explaining what sort of transform would be implied. It’s almost designed to confuse and fail to explain what’s meant.
And really, it’s a theory developed from a limited perspective, since we can’t move a significant distance compared to the scale of the observable universe.
But as for the question of how can something not be infinite, but also have no end, again you’re slamming into a definition problem, because “finite” and “infinite” need specific definitions and context before what’s being said would be meaningful.
The notion though is maybe our universe “wraps around” reminiscent of what would happen if one were stuck on the surface of a sphere and unable to conceive of other dimensions, or what if one were stuck in an Atari 2600 computer game with the “wrap around” option turned on, so that when one leaves one side, one just appears on the other side, but there are no sides.
The suggestion isn’t that there IS a sphere, but that the universe behaves like a sphere in that one way, that moving in one direction will never get you out of the universe, and there is no center, so if you could ever move (or plot a line) through the entire universe, you’d just find yourself going through the same space again.
I tend to think it’s actually a conceptual dodge. rather than the truth.