While listening to the superbowl on TV last night I was perusing the Sunday
New York Times. Enough news that cannot be consumed in one sitting. I came across the obituary of
Geoffrey Burbidge. It was the headline that caught my attention. This by Dennis Overbye, he writes "Geoffrey Burbidge, 84, Dies; Traced Life to Stardust."
Dr Burbidge was a fascinating person I would like to have known. My condolences to his family and friends for their loss. And the concept "we are stardust" is equally fascinating and quoted from this New York Times' article:
In 1957, in a long, groundbreaking paper in The Reviews of Modern Physics
, Dr. Burbidge; his wife, E. Margaret Burbidge; William Fowler of the California Institute of Technology; and Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University — a collaboration noted by their initials B2FH — laid out the way that thermonuclear reactions in stars could slowly seed a universe that was originally pure hydrogen, helium and lithium, the simplest elements in the periodic table, with heavier elements like oxygen, iron, carbon and others from which life is derived.
Stars like the Sun burn hydrogen into helium to generate heat and light for most of their lives, until they run out of fuel and fizzle, or so the story goes. But more massive stars can go on to ignite helium to produce carbon and oxygen and so forth. Eventually the star explodes, tossing the newly minted atoms into space, where they mix with gas and dust and are incorporated into future stars. Successive generations of stars that coalesce from cosmic dust, burn and then explode would thus make the universe ever richer in heavy elements.
Allan Sandage of Carnegie Observatories, an old friend of Dr. Burbidge’s, once explained it this way: “Every one of our chemical elements was once inside a star. The same star. You and I are brothers. We came from the same supernova.”
Or as the singer Joni Mitchell put it, “We are stardust.”
One reason for me to paint flowers is to learn their names. I know a rose, a daisy and a iris but beyond that I need a label on the blossom. I brought some scarlet Gerber daisy to the studio and happily the other white flowers (the name escapes me) were still lively but I could not arranged them in a desirable way. So instead I reworked a floral painting that had issues and then started a new one based on the photo posted in yesterday's blog. Normally I do not like working from photos and it shows in this second painting. My printer was out of color ink and low on black ink so the image printed scratchy. After lots of errors I decided to photograph the painting and study it on the computer back home. Viewing a painting using other methods helps to the spot problems now glaring on the computer screen. This one needs help. For one thing I might have stopped before removing the flower from the space between the stem and the leaves. Plus other areas call for attention. I did bring the Gerber daisy and the white flowers home, used another vase and somehow this arrangement works for me. I plan on sketching these this afternoon. And if anyone knows what the white ones are please tell me.
