# Can Math Prove There’s no Hell?

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.

(1 Samuel 2:8) KJV

If you use circular reasoning to induce a rationalization of the premise that there’s no hell, but there is a hell, and then you code your rationale as math, does hell disappear?

Of course not. Hell is expanding, it’s the cause of global warming. However the nice people over at peer review don’t want you to have to worry about something so arcane as eternal torment, so they came up with some rationale which makes it look like you can use math to prove that there’s no hell. The problem is, math is inductive and you can make it do whatever you want.

If you want to use math to prove that there’s no hell, this is how you’d do it. Some bright spark responded to us with an intriguing piece which attempted to prove that the measured value for g (acceleration due to gravity) refutes the idea that there’s a great gulf of open space inside the Earth. Here’s his rationalization.

We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.

Matty’s Razor

## A Response to radial shrinkage and the pillars of the Earth

From the perspective of modern science, the mass of the entire core is 1.719 x10^24 kg, or 27.5% of the earth’s mass.
And the mass of the inner core is 1.162 x10^23 kg, or 1.86% of the earth’s mass.[12]
We can subtract the two to get the mass of the outer core and the percentage of earth’s total mass it makes up.
By subtracting 1.162 x10^23 kg from 1.719 x10^24 kg we get 1.603 x10^24 kg.

This is 25.6% of the earth’s mass!!!
Almost 26% of the earth’s mass!!!

Now take earth’s measured mass and subtract 25.6% to get the new mass for Matty’s Paradigm.
If we do (5.972 x10^24 x 25.6%) we get 1.528 x10^24 kg, which is the mass we need to subtract from earth’s original mass.
Now we subtract 1.528 x10^24 from 5.972 x10^24 to get 4.444 x10^24 kg as earth’s new mass.
Now that we have earth’s new mass we must calculate its gravitational force.

For this example we will calculate earth’s surface gravity using the equation g = G x M/r2 where “g” is surface gravity, “G” is the gravitational constant, “M” is the mass of earth, and “r” is earth’s radius.[13]
If you do this calculation with earth’s accepted mass you get 9.81 meters/second squared.
However, we are using what would be Matty’s earth mass.
Start with the exponent on the radius, so earth’s radius is 6.378 x10^6 meters, when we square that we get 4.068 x10^13 meters.
Now divide Matty’s earth mass by the previous calculation, so 4.444 x10^24 divided by 4.068 x10^13 meters. This gives us 1.092 x10^11.
One more step, multiply this by the gravitational constant which is 6.67 x10^-11. So we do 1.092 x10^11 multiplied by 6.67 x10^-11 to get 7.29 meters/second squared as earth’s new gravitational pull.

Interesting, this is significantly less than the accepted gravitational pull, a little under 25%.
Now we have something that we can test!
We can directly measure what the acceleration of gravity is on earth using the free fall test and then compare our findings with the theoretical calculations made.[14]
In the case of the theoretical calculations being used, they are 9.8 meters/second squared and 7.29 meters/second squared.
Using the free fall test, which can be found in my works cited page, one can test for themselves the earth’s ACTUAL acceleration of gravity.
The test should yield approximately 9.8 meters/second squared if they follow the constraints of the experiment properly and make no errors.
The test is accurate enough that even if errors are made, they won’t be higher than several percent.
You’d have to have a percent error of about 23% to get 7.29 meters/second squared.
This is the nail in the coffin for Matty’s claim about the earth’s outer core.
The free fall experiment proves, effectively and DIRECTLY, that there is no possible way that earth could have an outer core without mass.

– Dennis The Menace @JonathanTh11 A Response to the Pillars of the Earth and Radial Shrinkage

As impressive as that may look, don’t be intimidated. It’s inductive, not deductive. It’s as substantial as breaking wind. The problem here is that the rationale is dependent on Newton/Einstein gravitation and that’s a load of dingo’s kidneys.