SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/Deflection.html https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdfAs usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! 😂
Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/Deflection.html https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdfPaul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! 😂
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D
As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.
You have not disproved his case for that.
It won't suffice for you to thumb your nose at criticisms of relativity.
Are you a Sinophobe?
Your reply sucks.
You are incompetent at defending relativity as usual.
Newtonian physics (meant as pre-relativistic
physics) says nothing about gravitational
light deflection.
Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
Den 26.04.2025 23:16, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.
So you agree with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric predicts
that the light from all the stars in outer space would be passing
through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars
Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
by dividing the GR prediction by 2?
The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Examples:
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
φ = 15⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.015468"
GR: θ = 0.030938"
φ = 30⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.007600"
GR: θ = 0.015201"
φ = 45⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.004917"
GR: θ = 0.009833"
φ = 60⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.003527"
GR: θ = 0.007055"
φ = 75⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002654"
GR: θ = 0.005308"
φ = 90⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002037"
GR: θ = 0.004073"
Now you can compare these predictions with
the measurements made in the following experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
What is your conclusion?
Is any of the theories falsified?
On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun
Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light.
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:22:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight going through the Sun.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.
It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
by dividing the GR prediction by 2?
The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Examples:
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
φ = 15⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.015468"
GR: θ = 0.030938"
φ = 30⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.007600"
GR: θ = 0.015201"
φ = 45⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.004917"
GR: θ = 0.009833"
φ = 60⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.003527"
GR: θ = 0.007055"
φ = 75⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002654"
GR: θ = 0.005308"
φ = 90⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002037"
GR: θ = 0.004073"
Now you can compare these predictions with
the measurements made in the following experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
What is your conclusion?
Is any of the theories falsified?
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
the deflection angle would have to be:
On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun
Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.
Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,
Let's analyse what Mei has shown:
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center.
This is almost correct!
For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
the deflection angle would have to be:
R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.
This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------
φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
the Earth will graze the Sun.
In the post you responded to, I wrote:
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the eclipticPaul, your comprehension is feeble.
plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
The night sky on the earth would be starless."
Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 9:29:52 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun
Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.
Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.
You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
by gravity.
I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.
It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
derivation is faulty.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:59:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight >>> going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,
Let's analyse what Mei has shown:
https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
I quote from the introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center.
This is almost correct!
For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
the deflection angle would have to be:
R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.
This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------
φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
the Earth will graze the Sun.
In the post you responded to, I wrote:
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
The night sky on the earth would be starless."
Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.
Paul, your comprehension is feeble.
No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.
"Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰."
Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.
You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
metric.
Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.
Den 28.04.2025 20:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.
This equation:
θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ (1)
Where:
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.
It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
the equation is correct.
But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,
On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most ignorant
and stupid contributor in this NG.
See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of the idiot you're worshipping
to be not even consistent - and except spitting, insulting or slandering
you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects that every doggie will do
his duty.
On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.
See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.
Den 29.04.2025 13:45, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.
See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.
Sorry, you have to do better to catch up with
Laurence Clark Crossen.
Try varying your mantra a bit. Repeating the same over and
over won't do, so Laurence Clark Crossen is still in the lead.
Try again?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 490 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 71:33:32 |
Calls: | 9,678 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 13,722 |
Messages: | 6,172,228 |