A phenomenon, akin to that which we have just been considering, is presented by that great cone of diffused light which accompanies the sun, and which in tropical climes displays a brilliancy seldom witnessed in high latitudes, on account of its greater deviation from the perpendicular. Sir John Herschel conjectures that it may be "no other than the denser part of that medium, which, as we have reason to believe, resists the motion, of comets,--loaded, perhaps, with the actual materials of the tails of millions of those bodies, of which they have been stripped in their successive perihelion passages, and which may be slowly subsiding into the sun." If these materials have been stripped, it is due to some force; and the same force would scarcely permit them to subside into the sun. Once stripped, these portions must be borne outwards, by the radial stream, to the outer verge of the system. Still, there are, no doubt, denser particles of matter, of the average atomic density of Mercury and Venus, which can maintain their ground against the radial stream, and continue to circulate near the central plane of the vortex, in all that space between the earth and the sun. But if the zodial light be the denser part of that medium, which astronomers now generally recognize as a resisting medium, how happens it that it should be confined to the plane of the ecliptic? Why should it not be a globular atmosphere? Here, again, our theory steps in with a triumphant explanation; for while it permits the accumulation of such particles around the equatorial plane of the sun, it allows no resting-place very far removed from this plane. The zodial light, therefore, is not the resisting medium, but the passage of the radial stream through a diffuse nebula of atoms, brought down the poles of the vortex by the polar current, and held in check along the central plane by gravitation. If these atoms partook of the velocity of the ether, they would not be luminous; but being held back by gravitation, they are opposed to the radial stream, and hence the light. Many stars are also nebulous. In some cases we see the nebulosity edgewise, or along the equatorial planes of the stellar vortices; in others we look down the poles, and the nebulosities are circular, and there is an endless variety in the shape and intensity of this light. But the universe seems full of motion, and we are not justified in supposing, because a star shows no such light, that it is without rotation. The parallax of the nearest star is only one second, the whole lenticular mass of light which surrounds our sun would therefore only subtend an angle of a single second at the nearest fixed star. Seeing its extreme faintness, therefore, the effulgence of the star would render it totally invisible, provided that it _could_ traverse the vast immensity of intervening space, without feeling the influence of that extinction, which Struve has proved does actually diminish the number of visible stars.