Prof. Richard Proctor says: "Profs. Bond and Zollner calculated that Jupiter sends forth more light than he receives from the sun," and he concludes that, "if this be true, Jupiter must be partially self-luminous and shines in part by his own light." This sustains my position that there is no such thing as "borrowed light from the sun," any more than borrowed heat from the sun. There are currents of electricity from the sun which burst into light and heat on the earth and planets when they come in contact with their opposite electricity. But each globe in space evolves its own light and heat in its own environing atmosphere. If Jupiter shines by its own light, then the earth and planets all shine by their own light, the sun furnishing the electric power to enable them to do so. I think our moon is no exception. It evolves the mild silvery light it displays in our midnight skies from its own attenuated atmosphere, but displays it, like the planets, only on the side exposed to the direct rays of the sun. The greater and denser parts of the moon's atmosphere is in the deep and numerous cavities of its torn and rugged volcanic surface. All planets and satellites shine by the light evolved in their own atmosphere. I contend that no reliance can be placed in the spectroscopic evidence of heat in the sun, or any distant globe. This ought to be apparent when all light and heat rays can only be translated into photography as a picture evolved in our own atmosphere. What we see are the electric colors in the atmosphere of a distant sun or planet. The spectroscope simply photographs the colors of the elements in solution composing the atmosphere, just as we photograph the rich colors of a glowing sunset or a gorgeous rainbow. The evidence of the spectroscope as to heat has been greatly exaggerated and overestimated by the scientists, for it can give no evidence of heat. An astronomer standing on the moon and examining our gorgeous, glowing, crimson sunsets or aurora through a spectroscope would declare our earth was a blazing ball of fire. It would seem so to him, and he would have just as strong evidence as our astronomers have that the sun is hot or a ball of fire. Our astronomers look at the brilliant colors of the sun's aurora and make the same mistake. All the astronomers admit the truth of Prof. Proctor's statement--that "the heat-giving power of a star is not proportional to the amount of light it emits." I ask why? And the answer is very plain: Because the stars and suns have no excessive heat and never had. Recent facts prove the sun is not hot. Prof. C. G. Abbott of the Smithsonian Institute, in his observations on the sun's eclipse on May 28th, 1900, says in his report: "My experiments showed the corona of the sun was actually cooler than the gray card which had been used at the room temperature."