I am interested to know if any REers on this site can answer my question about the world's oceans.
It is a natural state of affairs that the Universe will always tend towards its lowest energy state. In order for the world's oceans to achieve their lowest possible energy state, the measured value of
g should be the same at every point corresponding to the surface of the ocean, if indeed they are being held in place by gravitation and not acceleration. If it is higher in some places than in others, the water should flow from the places with low values of
g to those with higher values until
g is equal everywhere at the surface. This is basic physics; the water is more weakly attracted where
g is lower and will move to where gravitation is stronger.
Now,
this table indicates that the measured value of
g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s
-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s
-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%. Were the oceans truly bound to the surface of the Earth gravitationally, those nearer the Equator should be seeking out the lower energy states that exist in the polar regions and accumulating there. Coastal cities such as Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded, while there would be much more dry land in Oceania and Central America.
Why is this not the case?
First, I will assume that all of your statements are true (including the postulation that there should be enough water coalescing near the poles to cause flooding of land masses there). How could anyone possibly prove that the area near the poles is NOT "flooded," and that there is NOT much more dry land in Oceania and Central America than there would be IF the water did not accumulate near the poles? Since there cannot be constructed a test with parameters that, if met, would disprove it (correct me if I am wrong there), your hypothesis is not falsifiable (as would be mine if I were to take the opposite stance), and therefore any analysis thereof is not scientific. Furthermore, note that the words "more" and "less" imply a comparison; to what are you proposing we compare the current land masses near the poles and near the equator?
But I'm pretty sure that's an insufficient answer to the question, so here's a little bit more (and I am going to propose something that is not really falsifiable, because there's not much that either of us can do with this topic that would be scientific). Yes, it is correct that the universe tends towards lower energy states, and so water would tend to "accumulate" near the polar regions. But the difference in the gravitational force between the equator and the poles is minute, and let's face it, there is a lot of water in the ocean. In order to maintain its lowest energy state, the ocean waters would tend to accumulate at the poles, but would also flow downwards into the basins created by that accumulation once the difference in gravitational states was overcome (as I am sure you well know). When the entire basin that contains the oceans is completely filled, the accumulation of water at the poles is minimal compared to the size of the ocean as a whole (or compared to anything, really). Thus, a small difference may exist between sea level at the poles and at the creator. With that in mind, any "flooding" or exposure of "dry land" has already occurred; it would be ridiculous to assume that after ages of existence, the oceans suddenly realized, "We need to accumulate near the poles. Let's flood Denmark and Norway!" Granted, if it were not for that accumulation, there may well be more "dry" land near the poles and less near the equator, but for that, see my first paragraph.
