To requote the National Geographic headline. This simple declaration is revealing; a) If time can end, it is by definition not infinite in scope. b) The "end of time" is connected with the end of the existence of the universe. According to your argument, if time is infinite regardless of the existence of the universe, the highlighted headine a) would be a misinterpretation, nay, a colossal scientific blunder in cosmology. The stated association of time with the existence of the universe suggests that time is only a local phenomenon and directly connected to the existence and duration of a dynamical something, but not of an infinite non-dynamical state of nothingness. Which to me sounds entirely reasonable and in accordance of the current definition of time. Form Webster, It is clear that the concept of time is extremely flexible and variable, but it is alway connected with an activity of sorts. A state of nothingness has no implication of any measurable activity, it is an indeterministic concept, which is beyond our ability to assign any properties and therefore no time of duration of something. * This would seem the closest to your perspective, but note that it still addresses a sequence of events. In a condition of nothingness there are no events of any kind. Simply put, there exists nothing at all which can be identified as creative of time of duration. Only if there is a beginning and an end, does time play a role for humans. It allows us to measure things.