In summary, white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution shows our universe had a distinct beginning, has a finite life span (white dwarfs reach the black dwarf stage of evolution), and will come to an end based upon heat death. The 2nd Law/entropy wins. As the universe ages, it is winding down, not up and the *evolution* of white dwarfs demonstrates this. The problem confronting the eternal universe advocates is stellar evolution of white dwarfs ending in black dwarfs and black dwarf supernovae, heat death of the expanding universe observed today. It is game over for recreating new universes according to white dwarf stellar evolution, slowly evolving into black dwarfs
I was in the middle of writing this as you posted your last post, so I'll go ahead and post this anyway, and then come back and specifically answer the questions you've raised in said post.
My previous posts dealt with beginnings, so now on to the end.
The observation of the accelerating expansion of the universe is explained with dark energy. We don't know what dark energy is or its full properties. Your support for the end of the universe is dependent on something we know nothing about or even if it exists at all. Don't you think that something as important as the end needs something a bit more concrete than an unknown 'dark energy'?
Anyway, what do you mean by 'the universe'?
Catastrophe pointed out that the dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". You, this web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. for example, statements like - "The
universe started with the
big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.
So until proven otherwise I think its equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is
not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!
Everything that exists, exists in a space. The big bang may have created space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but at the same time, it must have existed in a space, even if just a void or geometric space. So, if you want to stick with the idea that the contents of the big bang is also the universe, you are assuming that the rest of space that the big bang existed in is infinite and void, in order to allow indefinite expansion and heat death. A bit absurd in my opinion.
Me from last post - "For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death.
Altogether, with unknown dark energy, and the possibility that the contents of the big bang are expanding into a 'greater whole' or 'The Infinite', don't you think it's a bit unsafe to predict the end, (heat death) of 'everything that there is' just yet?
