Yes I mentioned it in the post above actually, about dimensions and planes.
If you refer to the post about the soap bubbles (your last post before this one) that has nothing to do with the question I asked, unless you are trying to say that a universe without stars, galaxies and planets is a pocket universe. Which would seem to be strange, since in the time immediately after the Big Bang would then be defined as a pocket universe, which became a universe and then theoritically descends back into a pocket universe. This sort of model doesn't make much sense, considering that the content of the "space" has not and will not change, only the arrangement. It would be like saying an empty balloon isn't a balloon.
The post above that one simply links back to an older post, where you say that a universe requires planets, stars and galaxies to be a universe, which doesn't offer an alternative name for what you would call a post heat-death "universe".
So... yet again, can you repeat your answer since I cannot seem to find it and "the post above" doesn't give me anything accurate that makes sense.
Not it isn't, as we lack any reference point or true understanding of what it would be like to base any real meaningful discussion upon it (edit I am referring to the big rip). This is like discussing the inside of a black hole, and whether it leads to some other dimension. Another example of this is why the galaxies are moving away from us at ever increasing velocities.
We simply do not know enough to form a cogent answer.
Edit: In fact the nearest we got to examining a universe full of dead stars was the Xeelee books. But unable to defeat the Photino Birds, they created Bolders Ring and fled into another multiverse.
So... according to this part of your post, we don't even understand the universe well enough to define it. Yet, you confidently assert that the definitions provided, which we cannot have a meaningful discussion about because we lack a true understanding, MUST be wrong.
Also, I don't see any reason to believe that the Xeelee books by Stephen Baxter are any more relevant to what to call a universe without stars (funny, you just said it was a universe) than anything else. In fact, it seems like just a smokescreen that has nothing to do with the point.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Eberron has
Thelanis and Dragonlance apparently has something called
Summerhome, and both seem to be the Feywild in all but name. And Magic: the Gathering has
Eldraine, which just hasn't been converted to 5e in any way yet (that I know of).
I don't believe Thelanis is really anything like the Feywild. But I don't see much point in diving down that rabbit hole at this time.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Claiming the dictionary is innacurate is laughable at best.
But you do have to admit, some science fiction author somewhere may have coined a new term that isn't in the Dictionary.
I mean, I make up new terms to describe new ideas I've had all the time.
www.enworld.org
