>>7065 (OP)
A sunrise would indeed not be a sunrise if it never ended, but that's just because the sun wouldn't be rising if it never shifted positions. "A waterfall made of water that does not fall is not a waterfall" is essentially what you're musing here.
A wilted flower is still a flower. As are artificially preserved flowers. You can indeed find "wiltless" flowers through preservation, but they are still seen as beautiful all the same. Flowers are flowers as long as we see them as such. Things are funny that way, they can hold attributes simply by us recognizing their relation to their original states. A flower can wilt, rot, and turn to dust, and we'd still know the flowerpot filled with dirt and rot to be the flower that once was.
If you take a photograph of something beautiful and show it to somebody many years past its end, they will still find it beautiful. If you're going to extend the idea that viewing the photo is itself a new temporary experience, then so too would each new instance of looking upon an eternal beauty. If you're going to claim that it's merely because the photo is a snapshot of when the subject was still beautiful, then the eternal beauty would itself serve as its own snapshot of beauty. Life itself is temporary, beautiful or otherwise. The temporal element is not what makes beauty valuable, it's simply an unfortunate side effect of existing in a temporal world. If something could retain its beauty permanently, that wouldn't lessen its value, that would just widen the window of opportunity to experiencing it.
Beauty isn't a flash sale at Walmart, it's perfectly appreciable even when mundane. Besides, if a tree is beautiful in the woods with nobody around to see it, doesn't it still make a sound?
Also a dead child necessarily mustn't grow up. Like the flower, a dead child is still a child. Dead children don't really grow up, though. :(