Starting from the possible sixfold division around Antarctica, it is possible to examine how this geometry relates to the tectonic plates and major tectonic systems outside the Antarctic region.

The Pacific Ring of Fire is particularly important in this respect because its geometry can be analysed in considerable detail. When examined in relation to the Mantle Convection Roll model, its overall form becomes even more clearly defined.

Several key locations show remarkably simple angular relationships when measured from the geographic South Pole. For example, the angle between the directions towards the Alpine Fault in New Zealand and Yellowstone is approximately 90°. This corresponds with another geometric relationship already identified: the Alpine Fault lies close to the continuation of the minor axis of the Antarctic ellipse, whereas Yellowstone lies close to the continuation of its major axis.

Thus, two major parts of the Ring of Fire can be related directly to the two perpendicular axes of the Antarctic geometry. The Ring of Fire also extends southward into the Antarctic tectonic system. This makes it possible to examine its geometry not only as a Pacific feature, but as part of a larger global arrangement.

From 90° and 45° to 60° and 120°

The two principal axes associated with the geometry of the Ring of Fire are themselves inclined by approximately 45° relative to one another in the larger construction used here. Once the possible 60° sector division around Antarctica is introduced, another question naturally follows:

How does the geometry of the Ring of Fire relate to 60° and 120° angular divisions? An interesting relationship appears at the equator, as the outer limits of the Pacific Ring of Fire, measured approximately from Indonesia to the western margin of South America, span about 150° of longitude.

However, the inner margins of the Ring of Fire lie approximately 15° inward from each outer margin.

Therefore we get; 150° − 15° − 15° = 120°, so the effective width of the inner Ring of Fire is consequently about 120°.

This is particularly significant because 120° is exactly one third of a complete circle: 360° / 3 = 120°.

It therefore becomes possible to construct three comparable great tectonic ring systems around the Earth, each displaced by approximately 120° from the next.

These may provisionally be called:

1. The Pacific Ring of Fire
2. The Indian Ocean Ring
3. The Atlantic Ring

The Pacific Ring is by far the most conspicuous of the three because the tectonic boundaries around the Pacific are exceptionally well developed: long subduction zones, major transform systems, volcanic arcs and associated seismic belts together produce the familiar Ring of Fire.

The other two proposed rings are less visually obvious. Their boundaries are interrupted by continents, ocean basins and tectonic systems of different ages, and they have not generally been considered as parts of equivalent circular structures. Nevertheless, when their positions are examined in the same geometric framework, substantial agreement with known geological features becomes apparent.

Three overlapping 120° systems

The important point is that these three rings should not necessarily be imagined as three completely separate circles placed side by side, and they overlap.

If three equivalent rings are arranged around the globe so that the inner margins of neighbouring rings meet or intersect at the principal division points, a repeating global pattern is produced. In this construction, each ring occupies approximately a 120° internal sector, while the outer tectonic expression may extend farther and overlap with the neighbouring ring.

This overlap may be geologically important. The Pacific Ring of Fire itself becomes easier to understand when viewed in this way.

Kermadec–Tonga and the overlap with the Indian Ocean Ring

One of the most interesting examples is the Kermadec–Tonga system. Kermadec–Tonga lies noticeably inside the broader geometrical outline of the Pacific Ring of Fire rather than simply following its outermost boundary. In a model based only on a single Pacific ring, this position appears somewhat anomalous.

However, if the Indian Ocean Ring overlaps the Pacific Ring, the position of Kermadec–Tonga becomes much more natural. It lies within the zone where the two systems interact.

Thus, what may initially appear to be an irregularity in the Pacific Ring may instead represent the superposition of two larger tectonic geometries:

Pacific Ring + Indian Ocean Ring.

This would also help explain why the southwest Pacific is tectonically much more complicated than a simple elliptical outline would suggest. The region around New Zealand, Kermadec, Tonga, Fiji and the neighbouring back-arc systems lies precisely where different large-scale tectonic systems would be expected to overlap.

In this interpretation, the complexity is therefore not necessarily evidence against the larger geometry. It may actually be one of its consequences.

Antarctica as the geometric reference

Antarctica provides an unusually useful reference system for examining these relationships because several different geometries appear to be centred on, or organized around, the South Polar region.

At least three levels can be distinguished:

A global rather than a regional geometry

The important point is not simply to draw three circles on a map and search for features that happen to lie upon them. The relevant question is whether independently mapped geological structures repeatedly coincide with the predicted boundaries, axes, intersections and overlap zones.

The Pacific Ring of Fire provides the clearest test because its tectonic structure is so well mapped. Its inner and outer margins can be distinguished, its major axes can be compared with Antarctic geometry, and key locations such as the Alpine Fault, Yellowstone and Kermadec–Tonga provide additional geometric constraints.

If the same construction can then be followed through the Indian Ocean and Atlantic regions, using independently mapped ridges, subduction zones, continental margins, transforms and other major tectonic boundaries, the comparison becomes considerably more significant.

The proposed relationship can therefore be summarized as:

Antarctic 60° sectors
→ pairs of sectors forming 120° divisions
→ three overlapping tectonic rings around the Earth.

The three proposed systems are:

Pacific Ring of Fire — Indian Ocean Ring — Atlantic Ring.

Of these, the Pacific Ring is presently the clearest geological expression. The Indian Ocean and Atlantic rings require more detailed examination, but their predicted positions already coincide with several major tectonic structures.

Perhaps most importantly, viewing the three rings together does not weaken the familiar geometry of the Pacific Ring of Fire. It may actually make it more complete, because features such as the inward position of the Kermadec–Tonga system can be interpreted as the result of overlap between neighbouring global tectonic systems rather than as departures from the general pattern.

A striking feature of the Icelandic plateau is its broadly elliptical outline. The ellipse discussed here has its centre at approximately 65.600°N, 19.625°W. Its major axis is oriented exactly east–west along latitude 65.600°N, extending from approximately 27.300°W in the west to 11.950°W in the east. Its minor axis extends from approximately 63.000°N in the south to 68.200°N in the north.

Map base: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316330629_The_Greenland-Iceland-Faroe_Ridge_Complex

Using longitude λ and latitude ϕ, the ellipse is defined approximately by:

where λ denotes longitude, with western longitudes expressed as negative values, and ϕ denotes latitude.

The shape is particularly clear in the southeastern part of the Icelandic shelf, where relatively little later tectonic disturbance appears to have modified it. The most significant deviations occur in the northern sector, particularly around the Kolbeinsey Ridge, where younger spreading processes have substantially reorganized the crust. On geological and bathymetric maps, however, the elliptical geometry remains conspicuous. Of particular interest is that geological boundaries between the Icelandic part of the Greenland–Iceland–Faroe Ridge Complex and the adjoining ridge segments appear in places to follow the elliptical outline itself.

A stretched continental-crust interpretation

The geometry becomes especially interesting if the hypothesis proposed by Foulger and others is adopted as a working assumption: namely, that substantial amounts of stretched continental crust may remain beneath Iceland and parts of the Greenland–Iceland–Faroe Ridge Complex.

In such a model, Iceland would not consist exclusively of anomalously thick oceanic crust generated by excessive mantle melting. Instead, an older continental crustal component may have been progressively stretched, thinned, intruded by magma and covered by basalt during the opening of the North Atlantic.

If the remaining continental component beneath Iceland is approximately 20 km thick, whereas the original crust may have been 35–40 km thick, the crust must have undergone considerable areal extension. A simple volume-conservation calculation suggests that the original area could have been roughly one-half of the present affected area if the original crust was about 40 km thick.

The important point, however, is that the original block need not have been circular. It was probably elongated, because it represented part of the continental material being divided as Greenland separated from Europe. Its original structural connections would therefore naturally have extended toward Greenland on one side and toward the Faroe region on the other.

The Icelandic ellipse as a deformation envelope

The Icelandic ellipse should therefore not necessarily be interpreted as the original outline of a single continental fragment. A more plausible possibility is that it represents the finite deformation envelope of a wider zone of stretched continental crust.

The original continental material may have formed an irregular or elongated block, while long-term extension, lower-crustal flow, repeated rift relocation and magmatic intrusion produced a much smoother final deformation field. Over tens of millions of years, deformation distributed through a hot and mechanically weak crust can become considerably more regular than the original structural boundaries.

This possibility is compatible with several elements of Foulger’s model, particularly distributed extension, unstable and migrating spreading axes, broad transfer zones and ductile lower-crustal flow. Foulger does not propose the Icelandic ellipse itself, but the physical processes invoked in that model provide mechanisms through which a broad and relatively smooth deformation envelope could develop.

East–west extension

The major axis of the ellipse lies precisely east–west along 65.600°N. Within the mantle-convection-roll model, this is also an important structural latitude. The line passes through the central part of the northern volcanic-zone system when measured from north to south and through the geometric centre of the shelf ellipse.

The principal crustal extension can therefore be considered primarily east–west. This does not mean, however, that all deformation or material transport must have occurred east–west. The geometry suggests that the principal extension and the directions along which deformation was distributed may be different.

A useful distinction can therefore be made between the principal direction of extension, which was east–west, and the broader distribution of deformation, which appears to have taken place along northeast–southwest and northwest–southeast trends. This relationship may be fundamental to understanding the overall form.

Mirror-symmetric mantle boundaries

Within the mantle-convection-roll model, the major boundary associated with the Reykjanes Ridge continues through the central region beneath Iceland. It follows a curved SW–NE trajectory. A second underlying boundary forms a geometrical mirror image of this structure.

Both pass through the central region of the Icelandic ellipse. These two oblique systems can be considered mirror-symmetric components of a larger deformation field. This is mechanically important because two equally strong oblique deformation systems of opposite orientation can cancel their net shear while reinforcing their extensional components.

Schematically, if one system contributes a positive shear component, +γ, and its mirror-symmetric counterpart contributes an equal negative shear component, −γ, the two shear components cancel:

+γ+(−γ)=0

The net shear is therefore zero. The combined strain field can therefore retain principal axes oriented exactly east–west and north–south even though the underlying structural boundaries themselves are oblique. This offers a possible explanation for an otherwise curious feature: the Greenland–Iceland–Faroe system trends obliquely across the region, yet the Icelandic shelf ellipse itself is not similarly rotated. Its principal axes remain E–W and N–S.

Connections toward the Faroes and Greenland

The southeastern side of the ellipse connects with the Faroe segment of the ridge. The connection begins close to the eastern end of the major axis, near 65.6°N, 11.9°W, and continues southwestward toward approximately 63.3°N, 15.2°W.

This connection crosses the underlying convection-roll system obliquely rather than following a single roll boundary. According to the convection-roll model, it spans approximately five adjacent convection-roll elements, each separated by about 1.5° in longitude. Because the connecting zone crosses them obliquely, however, its real length and width cannot simply be calculated as (5\times1.5^\circ). The number five describes the number of underlying mantle units involved, rather than a direct geographical distance.

A corresponding connection occurs northwest of the major axis toward the Greenland segment of the ridge. It similarly extends across approximately five convection-roll elements but lies north of the 65.600°N major axis. The two connections therefore form complementary components of the same system:

• a southeastern connection toward the Faroes;
• a northwestern connection toward Greenland.

The Icelandic region between them is considerably wider than either connecting zone.

Why does the Icelandic region widen so much?

This may be one of the most important mechanical questions. If the connections toward Greenland and the Faroes are relatively narrow, why does the central Icelandic deformation zone expand into a broad ellipse roughly 700 km across? The answer may lie in the difference between a transfer zone and the deformation domain receiving the strain.

The Greenland and Faroe connections need not themselves be as wide as the Icelandic ellipse. Instead, they may transmit stress and deformation into a central region where the crust is hotter, weaker and more heavily intruded by magma. Once deformation enters such a mechanically weak domain, it can spread laterally.

A simplified sequence would therefore be: narrow oblique connection → broad, mechanically weak crustal domain → distributed extension and lower-crustal flow → development of an elliptical finite-strain envelope.

In this interpretation, the ellipse does not reflect the width of a single fault or rift. It represents the cumulative region over which deformation has been distributed.

Geological asymmetry superimposed on geometric symmetry

An important feature is that the ellipse is not preserved equally well on all sides. The southeastern sector appears especially regular. The geological boundary between the Icelandic region and the Faroe segment also seems to follow the elliptical geometry particularly clearly.

The Greenland-facing side appears sharper, whereas the Faroe-facing transition is broader and less abrupt. This difference does not necessarily contradict an originally symmetric underlying system. The subsequent tectonic histories of the two sides were different.

The largest disturbance occurs north of the 65.600°N axis around the Kolbeinsey Ridge. Spreading was reorganized in this region after the decline of the Aegir Ridge, and younger volcanic and spreading systems developed. These processes could have modified or overprinted an older elliptical deformation boundary.

Thus a distinction can be made between: primary geometric symmetry, controlled by the deeper system, and: secondary geological asymmetry, produced by later rift relocation, volcanism and crustal accretion.

Symmetry in degrees rather than kilometres

Another unusual aspect of the ellipse is that its symmetry is expressed in geographic angular coordinates. It is exactly symmetric about 65.600°N in latitude and 19.625°W in longitude. However, the Earth is spherical, and one degree of longitude becomes progressively shorter toward the north. Consequently, although the ellipse is geometrically symmetric in degrees, its northern half is physically smaller than its southern half when measured in kilometres.

At approximately 63°N, one degree of longitude corresponds to about 50 km, whereas near 68°N it is only about 41 km. The same east–west angular width therefore represents a greater physical distance in the south than in the north. This is important within the convection-roll hypothesis because the proposed mantle system itself is defined by angular divisions of the Earth. If the underlying mantle organization follows fixed longitudinal and latitudinal intervals, symmetry in degrees rather than kilometres would be expected within that model. This is quite different from an ordinary local strain ellipse constructed in a Cartesian coordinate system.

A possible combined mechanism

The emerging working hypothesis can therefore be summarized as follows. An elongated remnant of continental crust remained between Greenland and Europe during the opening of the North Atlantic. Beneath the Iceland region, the mantle-convection-roll system imposed a geometrically organized set of boundaries.

The principal crustal extension occurred in the east–west direction. At the same time, deformation was transmitted diagonally through two approximately mirror-symmetric systems extending toward Greenland in the northwest and the Faroes in the southeast. Because the two oblique systems are mirror-related, their shear components could largely cancel at the scale of the entire region while their extensional components reinforced one another. This allowed the principal axes of the cumulative strain field to remain east–west and north–south.

Within the Iceland region, hotter and weaker continental crust allowed deformation to spread laterally far beyond the widths of the narrower connections to Greenland and the Faroes. Ductile lower-crustal flow, repeated movement of spreading axes and extensive magmatic intrusion may have further smoothed the deformation field. The result could have been a broad, approximately elliptical finite-strain domain.

The Faroe and Greenland ridge segments would then represent narrower continuations of this larger crustal system rather than structures having the same width as the Icelandic central region.

Later tectonic reorganization, especially the development of the Kolbeinsey Ridge, subsequently disturbed the northern part of the original geometry. The most important observation is therefore not merely that the Icelandic shelf is approximately elliptical. It is that the geological boundaries, the central east–west axis, the connections toward Greenland and the Faroes, and the deeper mantle geometry proposed by the convection-roll model appear to form parts of the same symmetric system.

If the continental-crust interpretation is correct, the Icelandic ellipse may record the cumulative deformation of an old continental fragment whose extension was controlled not by a single rift axis, but by a wider and geometrically organized mantle deformation field.

The elliptical outline is particularly evident when compared with the geological and structural maps presented by Hjartarson et al. (2017). Their subdivision of the Greenland–Iceland–Faroe Ridge Complex shows distinct boundaries between the Icelandic shelf and the adjoining Greenland–Iceland and Iceland–Faroe ridge sectors. In particular, the southeastern geological boundary closely follows the elliptical outline described here. The elliptical interpretation itself is not proposed by Hjartarson et al.; it is introduced here as a geometric interpretation of the mapped structures.

The article: Hjartarson, Á., Erlendsson, Ö. & Blischke, A. (2017). The Greenland–Iceland–Faroe Ridge Complex. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 447, 127–148. DOI: 10.1144/SP447.14.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316330629_The_Greenland-Iceland-Faroe_Ridge_Complex

The Ring of Fire is difficult to define precisely, but it is increasingly recognized that the system exhibits an overall circular geometry, particularly when the volcanic regions of Antarctica are considered as part of the broader pattern. This observation deserves careful attention, and several key reference points can be used to define the geometry of the Ring of Fire.

The Minor Axis of the Ring of Fire

The first and most widely recognized reference is the San Andreas Fault in California. Part of this fault aligns so closely with the inferred geometry that it undergoes continuous creep without generating significant earthquakes. For this reason, a representative point along the San Andreas Fault is selected as a reference point on the map.

On the opposite side of the Ring of Fire lies the Alpine Fault of New Zealand. Unlike the San Andreas Fault, the Alpine Fault is oriented approximately perpendicular to the adjacent margin of the Ring. This suggests that different tectonic adjustments occur along the line connecting these two major fault systems.

Additional features are found along the same axis. To the northeast lies the Yellowstone volcanic region, while to the southwest is the junction between the elliptical forms of the Pacific and Antarctic plates.

The Antarctic Connection

The geometry of the Ring of Fire can then be completed by extending the circle so that it passes through two equatorial reference points: the eastern coast of Indonesia and the western coast of South America.

The resulting elliptical form is nearly symmetric about the equator. However, its center lies slightly south of the geographic equator, consistent with the position of the so-called tectonic equator.

Why Examine the Ring of Fire More Closely?

As the Ring of Fire displays a remarkable correspondence with a number of geological features, suggesting that its position and geometry are not entirely coincidental but instead follow certain large-scale patterns, it is worthwhile to examine its structure in greater detail and attempt to explain its existence more thoroughly.

---

The Equatorial Boundaries of the Ring of Fire

Previous sections have discussed the relationship between the equator and the subduction zones of eastern Indonesia and Peru. One of the first observations is the apparent correspondence between the Ring of Fire and the equatorial region.

These two equatorial points are approximately 150° apart and, in this interpretation, define the outer limits of the Ring of Fire. The Ring itself extends somewhat beyond these points, which is reasonable given that the effects of subduction continue beyond the immediate trench systems.

The Ring of Fire also exhibits relatively distinct inner and outer boundaries, making it useful to examine the inner boundary along the equator as well.

Papua New Guinea and the Galápagos Connection

Both in Indonesia and Peru, connections can be identified between the outer and inner rings near the equatorial line.

Along the northern coast of Papua New Guinea, several geological structures can be traced that follow this pattern. Similarly, west of Ecuador, the Galápagos Spreading Center extends across the eastern Pacific toward the Galápagos Islands, which in this model lie close to the inner boundary of the Ring of Fire.

The Galápagos region is particularly noteworthy because it marks the interaction between oceanic spreading processes and the eastern margin of the Pacific subduction system.

---

Antarctica and the Southern Extension of the System

A similar relationship can be identified along the minor axis of the Antarctic Plate ellipse.

The outer ring intersects the northern extension of the minor axis, while the southern end is associated with the plate boundary system south of New Zealand. This boundary includes the Puysegur, Macquarie, and Hjort trench systems and connects northward through the Alpine Fault of New Zealand.

The Alpine Fault shares some characteristics with the San Andreas Fault, although its orientation and tectonic setting are significantly different.

The northern endpoint of the minor axis corresponds approximately to the region of Yellowstone in North America.

---

Japan and the Northwestern Pacific

Attention should also be given to Japan.

The Inner Ring Through Japan

In this interpretation, the inner ring closely follows a major geological corridor extending from Hokkaido through Honshu to the vicinity of Mount Fuji.

The major axis lies somewhat farther north and approaches the tectonic junction near Sakhalin Island.

The Outer Ring and Eastern Asia

The outer ring approximately follows the transition zone between the highlands of western China and the lower-lying regions of eastern China.

The inner ring also links the endpoints of the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula, and the Aleutian Islands, which together form one of the most continuous volcanic arcs on Earth.

---

South America and Antarctica Within the Ellipses

The Andes Volcanic Arc

In South America, the ring encompasses the major volcanic chains of Peru and Chile, which are associated with subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American continent.

The resulting volcanic arc contains many of the highest active volcanoes on Earth.

Antarctic Volcanism

Likewise, most of the volcanoes of Antarctica fall within the two ellipses, including those of the West Antarctic Rift System and the volcanic provinces associated with Mount Erebus.

---

Subduction Zones Beyond the Elliptical Framework

A substantial portion of the western Pacific subduction zones, however, lies outside the circular region defined by these ellipses.

The Mariana System

South of Japan, the Izu–Bonin Trench extends southward before curving into the Mariana Trench. The trench contains the Challenger Deep, the deepest known point in Earth’s oceans.

Tonga, Kermadec and Hikurangi

Farther south, the Tonga Trench, Kermadec Trench, and Hikurangi Margin also lie inside the ellipses.

These regions represent areas where convergent plate interactions are strongly influenced by the westward motion of the Pacific Plate relative to neighboring plates.

---

The Northeastern Pacific Margin

It is also interesting to observe how the Juan de Fuca Ridge terminates near the inner boundary of the Ring of Fire.

From Juan de Fuca to Central America

From there southward toward Central America, a diverse range of tectonic boundaries—including spreading ridges, transform faults, and subduction zones—coincides with the inner ellipse.

This transition illustrates the complexity of the northeastern Pacific margin, where different styles of plate interaction are concentrated within a relatively narrow geographical corridor.

---

The Ring of Fire as a Global Tectonic System

Several additional observations support the significance of the Ring of Fire as a coherent tectonic system.

Approximately 75% of the world’s active volcanoes and about 90% of global earthquakes occur along its margins. The Ring extends for roughly 40,000 km around the Pacific Ocean and represents the surface expression of a nearly continuous network of subduction zones and volcanic arcs.

Although local plate interactions explain many individual features, the overall geometry of the system remains one of the most striking large-scale tectonic patterns on Earth, inviting further investigation into the deeper mantle processes that may influence its development.

---

The 30° Equatorial Pattern

Another aspect that should be incorporated into the overall picture is the series of reference points located along the equator at intervals of approximately 30°.

Major Geological Features Along the Equator

These points coincide with several major geological features:

• The western margin of South America
• The Mid-Atlantic Ridge
• Western Africa
• The East African Rift System
• The Central Indian Ridge
• Western Indonesia

The regular spacing between these features is striking and raises the question of whether the pattern reflects an underlying large-scale organization rather than a random distribution.

A Geometric Division of the Equator

From a geometric perspective, these locations divide the equatorial circumference into six segments of roughly equal width.

While plate tectonics explains the individual features through regional processes, the apparent regularity of their spacing invites consideration of whether deeper mantle-scale processes may also contribute to their positioning.

---

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Iceland and Antarctica

Particularly noteworthy is the location of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the equator.

A Key Reference Point

This point lies close to the midpoint of the Atlantic Ocean and aligns not only with the central axis of Iceland but also with the central axis of Antarctica as defined by the minor axis of the Antarctic Plate ellipse.

In this interpretation, the equatorial intersection of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge becomes a key reference point linking the North Atlantic, Iceland, and Antarctica within a common geometric framework.

---

Connecting Antarctica and the Ring of Fire

Continuing along this alignment toward the opposite side of the Antarctic ellipse leads to another significant observation.

A Shared Geometrical Reference Point

The extension of the Antarctic minor axis intersects the region where the minor axis of the Ring of Fire is proposed to cross the Pacific basin.

Thus, the Antarctic and Pacific systems appear to share a common geometrical reference point.

If this relationship proves to be meaningful rather than coincidental, it suggests that the geometries of the Antarctic Plate and the Ring of Fire may be connected through a larger-scale global tectonic pattern.

---

A Global Network of Geometric Relationships

The significance of these alignments becomes more apparent when viewed together.

The 30° spacing of major equatorial geological features, the alignment of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge with Iceland and Antarctica, and the apparent intersection between the minor axes of the Antarctic and Pacific systems collectively form a network of geometric relationships extending across the globe.

Whether these relationships arise from mantle convection, plate interactions, or another large-scale organizing mechanism remains open to investigation.

However, the consistency of the observed geometry suggests that such correlations deserve careful examination rather than being dismissed as mere coincidence.

---

Mantle Convection and the 30° Spacing

It should also be noted that the 30° spacing corresponds to one-twelfth of Earth’s circumference.

A Possible Mantle Connection

This value is noteworthy because it matches the proposed spacing of large-scale mantle convection structures discussed elsewhere in this work.

Under that interpretation, the equatorial points may represent surface expressions of deeper mantle organization, linking mid-ocean ridges, continental rifts, and subduction systems into a single global framework.

Conclusions

Such a possibility would provide a natural explanation for why several of Earth’s most prominent tectonic features appear at regular intervals around the equator.

Whether this interpretation ultimately proves correct remains a matter for further investigation, but the geometric relationships identified here suggest that the Ring of Fire, Antarctica, Iceland, and the major equatorial tectonic features may form part of a larger and more integrated global pattern than is commonly recognized.