Planetary Correlation of Teotihuacán and the Secret of Sedna

Abstract

A planetary correlation has been detected concerning the pyramid area at Teotihuacán, Mexico. The central Avenue of the Dead seems to represent a logarithmic astronomical scale and the pyramids, the temple of Quetzalcoatl, the solid barriers on the avenue and the Rio San Juan define markers on this scale. All of our eight planets, the Sun, the asteroid belt, and the trans-Neptunian object Sedna are well marked on the scale. At least 10 but probably 13 equations describe the correlation between planetary distances and terrestrial ranges at the pyramid site. Actually, the 13 equations are modifications of one single equation.

Full text

Hans Jelitto
Institute of Advanced Ceramics
Institute Meeting, TUHH, March 3, 2020

1. Introduction
2. Planetary correlation
3. Quantitative analysis
4. Including the Sun
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
6. Geographical alignment
7. Discussion
8. Summary
Outline 2
(After the talk at the TUHH, the presenta-
tion has been slightly updated, extended,
and an explanatory text has been added.
2nd Ed., July 2022)
(Figures on front page: Quetzalcoatl, God of Wind and Wisdom, as depicted in the Codex Borbonicus,
taken from Wikipedia. For more information concerning licenses, see the Appendix on the last slide.)

Conference in Cancun in 2005 (IMRC-2005) with
subsequent visit of some archaeological sites in Mexico

4
Pyramid site of Teotihuacán
1. Introduction Display board: INAH, Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia, México (see next slide)
Viewpoint (on the Adosada platform) and
viewing direction of the photo to the left

The Moon Pyramid is not quadratic but
elongated. Why? – This will be answered.
(SECRETARIA DE CULTURA.-INAH.-MEX. Reproduction Authorized by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México)

Pyramid of the Sun

Pyramid of the Moon

Remark: It seems that several structures and pyramid-like platforms are hidden under the grass and trees.
1. Introduction 8

Feathered Serpent Pyramid Adosada platform
Solid barriers on the
Avenue of the Dead
View to the Southwest from the Pyramid of the Sun

A closer look on four
of the solid barriers

Satellite images:
© 2017 HERE, 2014
DigitalGlobe, INEGI.
a) The six barriers on
the Avenue of the Dead
and the Pyramid of the
Sun.
b) Simplified drawing
of the barriers.
c) The Citadel including
the Feathered Serpent
Pyramid and the Adosa-
da platform – also called
Temple of Quetzalcoatl.
According to modern
research, the whole site
was built in the first two
centuries after Christ.
1. Introduction

12
The six barriers with heights of
around one to three meters are a
strange phenomenon. They are
obstacles that people must climb
over when walking along the
fantastic avenue. They appear to
not make any sense. – But now,
a question to the audience:
What does the whole site look
like?
To us, it looks like an axis or
a scale with the barriers being
markers along the scale. The
barriers are highlighted in red
(Fig. b).
2. Planetary correlation
Satellite image from Google
Maps: © 2014 Cnes/Spot Image,
DigitalGlobe

2. Planetary correlation
When considering the planets,
we have a problem in that we
have six barriers and eight
planets.
13
Satellite image from Google
Maps: © 2014 Cnes/Spot Image,
DigitalGlobe
American civil engineer
Hugh Harleston Jr.
(1925 – 2013):
“Teotihuacan represents
relations concerning the
Earth and our solar
system.”

2. Planetary correlation
When considering the planets,
we have a problem in that we
have six barriers and eight
planets.
However, the Rio San Juan
and the Pyramid of the Sun
provide two additional posi-
tions on the main axis.
13
Satellite image from Google
Maps: © 2014 Cnes/Spot Image,
DigitalGlobe
American civil engineer
Hugh Harleston Jr.
(1925 – 2013):
“Teotihuacan represents
relations concerning the
Earth and our solar
system.”

14
2. Planetary correlation The approach to explain the positions of the barriers
The positions are localized mainly on the east side of the Avenue of the Dead defining the
main axis. Otherwise, the position of the planet Earth on the scale would not be correct.

* Pyramid or temple position (off-axis)
† Sum or difference of two distances
15
3. Quantitative analysis Positions in Teotihuacán
The distances in meters were calculated
using GPS coordinates. (The correspond-
ing equations can be found in [1] on
pages 58–59. Concerning Teotihuacán, its
altitude of about 2300 m above mean sea
level must be taken into account.)
The lengths in millimeters in the last
column were precisely measured with
a ruler on a computer monitor showing
a satellite image. These are called “map
data.”
Geographical coordinates are
taken from Google Maps and
HERE WeGo.
[1] Jelitto, H.: Planetary Correlation of the Giza Pyramids – P4 Program
Description. ResearchGate (2015), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5135.2164

b=a⋅
√
1−e
2
Some orbital elements
●semi-major axis a
●eccentricity e
●semi-minor axis
●perihelion distance
●aphelion distance
16
q=a⋅(1−e)
Q=a⋅(1+e)
3. Quantitative analysis Astronomical data

17
French planetary theory VSOP: Variations
Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires
VSOP82 [3]
P. Bretagnon
VSOP87
[4]
orbital
elements [5]
P. Bretagnon,
G. Francou J. Meeus
[2] Lang, K. R.: Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars. Springer New York, … (1992)
[3] Bretagnon, P.: Théorie du mouvement … – VSOP82. Astron. Astroph. 114 (1982) 278
[4] Bretagnon, P., Francou, G.: Planetary Theories … – VSOP87, Astron. Astroph. 202 (1988) 309
[5] Meeus, J.: Astronomical Algorithms. 1st Ed., Willmann-Bell Inc., Richmond, Virginia (1991) 197
[6] Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.: Accurate D. …, Astrophys. J. 500, L195-L198 (1988)
(last 4 columns of table)
Semi-major axes a and eccentricities e (three alternatives)
3. Quantitative analysis Astronomical data

Aphelion distances Q
18
Position on the avenue [m]
The distances of the planets from
the Sun (AD 200) do not fit be-
cause they increase exponentially
when moving towards the outer
planets.
Instead, their logarithms work
very well. The blue trend line
represents a linear regression fit.
3. Quantitative analysis Correlation between planets and barriers
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
log (Q/km)
It seems reasonable to place the origin of the horizontal axis at the Pyramid of the Moon.

Semi-major axes a
19
Position on the avenue [m]
The fit becomes better.
3. Quantitative analysis Correlation between planets and barriers
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
log (a/km)
It seems reasonable to place the origin of the horizontal axis at the Pyramid of the Moon.

Perihelion distances q
20
Position on the avenue [m]
The fit is almost perfect and the
coefficient of determination is
close to 1 when the perihelion
distances are used.
Note that the coefficient of
determination is a measure that
means the correlation is not a co-
incidence. So, if R approaches 1,
the probability that we have an
accidental correlation is close to
zero.
2
3. Quantitative analysis Correlation between planets and barriers
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
log (q/km)
It seems reasonable to place the origin of the horizontal axis at the Pyramid of the Moon.

R=n
∑
d
i
p
i
−
∑
d
i
⋅
∑
p
i
√
n
∑
d
i
2
−
(
∑
d
i
)
2
⋅
√
n
∑
p
i
2
−
(
∑
p
i
)
2
¯
R
2
=1− (1−R
2
)⋅ n−1
n−s
R2 = coefficient of determination (Bestimmtheitsmaß)
R = correlation coefficient
di = positions (distances) on the avenue
pi = logarithms of the planetary distances (q, a, Q)
n = number of positions (i = 1…n)
R2 = adjusted coefficient of determination [7]
s = number of free model parameters
(Linear regression means s = 2.)
21
Position d on the avenue [m]
3. Quantitative analysis Used equations Combined representation of the three options
R2 is almost identical to R2 (0.99955
instead of 0.99962). So, we use R2.
[7] Theil, H.: Economic Forecasts and Policy. Amster-
dam: North-Holland Publishing Co. XXXI (1958)

22
But be careful: Photographic/per-
spective distortion means that the
positions of the pyramids are mostly
not their top. The GPS coordinates
are valid for the ground level.
The central pyramid position is:
1. the intersection of the diago-
nals of the pyramid base, or
2. the arithmetic mean of the
coordinates at the four corners
(for each of latitude and longi-
tude).
Satellite image: © 2017 HERE,
2014 DigitalGlobe, INEGI.
3. Quantitative analysis Pyramid of the Sun
The distance (yellow line) is about 214.8 m according to the GPS data, slide 15.

Satellite image: © 2014 Cnes/Spot
Image, DigitalGlobe
4. Including the Sun
First, we concentrate on the upper
question mark (right figure).
By moving further northward on
the avenue, there is no other ce-
lestial body except the Sun. Is
the Pyramid of the Moon another
marking on the main axis, asso-
ciated with the Sun?
If we look for a distance, mea-
sured from the solar center and
being characteristic for the Sun,
the solar radius seems obvious.
By including the logarithm of
this radius, the curve appears as
it is in the diagram on the next
slide.
?
23
?

24
The logarithm of the solar
radius (695508 km) is
exactly in line with the
data points of the planets
(perihelion distances).
The red point is calculated
by inserting the position of
the “barrier of the asteroids”
into Eq. (1).
(1)
Equation of the trend line:
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
4. Including the Sun Correlation including the eight planets + Sun
Position d on the avenue [m]
Remark: If we assume a hypothetical former planet at the position of the asteroids, the corresponding barrier yields
a perihelion distance of 2.353 AU (GPS) and 2.372 AU (map data), respectively, calculated for the year AD 200.

25
?
What about these numbers? In order to
simplify the equation, we replace the
human-made units of length with “nat-
ural” units. Thus, “km” is replaced by
the already-used solar radius and “m”
by the “Sun unit” (next two slides).
(1)
Equation of the trend line:
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
4. Including the Sun Correlation including the eight planets + Sun
Position d on the avenue [m]
Remark: If we assume a hypothetical former planet at the position of the asteroids, the corresponding barrier yields
a perihelion distance of 2.353 AU (GPS) and 2.372 AU (map data), respectively, calculated for the year AD 200.

4. Including the Sun Definition of the “Sun unit” 26
An eye-catching position is provided
by the central platform of the Plaza
de la Luna (Plaza of the Moon). So,
we define the “Sun unit” by the hor-
izontal distance from this platform
to the center of the Pyramid of the
Moon (Sun).
Satellite image: © 2020
Maxar Technologies

4. Including the Sun Definition of the “Sun unit” 27
Three base lines of the pyramid are
covered with rubble. So, one must
be careful when determining the po-
sition using the corners of the base.
However, it seems that, accidentally,
this satellite photograph was taken
from almost vertically above the
pyramid.
(Remark: The GPS coordinates for
the pyramid and the central platform
in the table of slide 15 belong to the
lower points on the main axis.)
Satellite image: © 2020
Maxar Technologies

log
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.47322⋅d
u
Sun
−0.01431
28
(1)
Units: RSun = 695508 km [6], uSun = 197 m
⇒(2)
[6] Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.: Accurate Determination of
the Solar Photospheric Radius, Astrophys. J. 500, L195-L198 (1998)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
Position d on the avenue [m]

log
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.47322⋅d
u
Sun
−0.01431
28
(1)
Units: RSun = 695508 km [6], uSun = 197 m
⇒
(almost zero)
(2)
[6] Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.: Accurate Determination of
the Solar Photospheric Radius, Astrophys. J. 500, L195-L198 (1998)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
This factor would vanish if it would be 1.
What else can we do?
?
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
Position d on the avenue [m]

(GPS)
(map)
29
(1)
Units: RSun = 695508 km [6], uSun = 197 m
⇒
⇒
or:
(2)
Base-3 logarithm:
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
(Remember: log3 x = log x/ log 3)
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
log
3
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.99181⋅d
u
Sun
−0.02998
log
3
(
q
R
Sun
)
=1.00063⋅d
u
Sun
−0.02022
log
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.47322⋅d
u
Sun
−0.01431
Position d on the avenue [m]

(GPS)
(map)
29
This leads to the basic equation (3):
(1)
Units: RSun = 695508 km [6], uSun = 197 m
⇒
⇒
or:
(2)
Base-3 logarithm:
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
(Remember: log3 x = log x/ log 3)
log
(
q
km
)
=0.0024021⋅d
m+5.8280
log
3
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.99181⋅d
u
Sun
−0.02998
log
3
(
q
R
Sun
)
=1.00063⋅d
u
Sun
−0.02022
log
(
q
R
Sun
)
=0.47322⋅d
u
Sun
−0.01431
Position d on the avenue [m]

30
(GPS data)
R2 = 0.999804
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9

31
(Map data)
R2 = 0.999904
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9

31
3 · R = 4.56 ·10 km
8
Sun
9
q = 4.46 ·10 km
Neptune
9
(Map data)
8th planet Neptune
R2 = 0.999904
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9

31
3 · R = 4.56 ·10 km
8
Sun
9
q = 4.46 ·10 km
Neptune
9
(Map data)
due to the “Sun unit”
8th planet Neptune
R2 = 0.999904
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
(The Sun unit, uSun, was probably intended.)
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9

31
3 · R = 4.56 ·10 km
8
Sun
9
q = 4.46 ·10 km
Neptune
9
(Map data)
8th planet Neptune
R2 = 0.999904
Sun in the origin!
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
(The Sun unit, uSun, was probably intended.)
due to the “Sun unit”
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9

log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun
, i =0, ...,9
31
How would R2 change
if we consider the remote
past or future?
3 · R = 4.56 ·10 km
8
Sun
9
q = 4.46 ·10 km
Neptune
9
(Map data)
8th planet Neptune
R2 = 0.999904
Sun in the origin!
i celestial body
0 Sun
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3 Earth
4 Mars
5 (Asteroids)
6 Jupiter
7 Saturn
8 Uranus
9 Neptune
(3)
(qi = perihelion distance, except q0 = RSun)
4. Including the Sun Correlation: eight planets + Sun
due to the “Sun unit”
(The Sun unit, uSun, was probably intended.)

GPS data Map and GPS data
The semi-major axis a and eccentri-
city e as functions of time are derived
from VSOP82 by Jean Meeus [5].
Maximum of R2 (perih. distances):
99.985 % in 9930 BC (GPS data)
99.994 % in 9570 BC (map data)
32
4. Including the Sun R2 from 18 000 BC to AD 4000
[5] Meeus, J.: Astronomical Algorithms. Willmann-Bell Inc., Richmond, Virginia (1991) 197–204
Coefficient of determination R2
Coefficient of determination R2
Julian year Julian year

GPS data Map and GPS data
The semi-major axis a and eccentri-
city e as functions of time are derived
from VSOP82 by Jean Meeus [5].
Maximum of R2 (perih. distances):
99.985 % in 9930 BC (GPS data)
99.994 % in 9570 BC (map data)
The pyramid site is probably not so
old, but another theoretical possibil-
ity exists.
In principle, this could be a hint
from the master builders pointing
to an important event in the distant
past around 9900 to 9600 BC.
32
4. Including the Sun R2 from 18 000 BC to AD 4000
[5] Meeus, J.: Astronomical Algorithms. Willmann-Bell Inc., Richmond, Virginia (1991) 197–204
Coefficient of determination R2
Coefficient of determination R2
Julian year Julian year

33
?
Satellite image: © 2014 Cnes/Spot
Image, DigitalGlobe
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
Crossing the Rio San Juan
and following the Avenue of
the Dead southwards, we
reach the Temple of Quetzal-
coatl. The given planetary
correlation defines a precise
astronomical scale that can
be easily extended to larger
distances. Passing the Rio San
Juan means entering the trans-
Neptunian area.
This outer region comprises
the Kuiper belt, Pluto, and
several other trans-Neptunian
objects (TNOs). So, is there
any celestial body that can be
attributed to the Temple of
Quetzalcoatl?

34
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl A special astronomical aspect
Connection between Kepler’s plane-
tary orbits and the logarithmic scale
perihelion distance q = a · (1 – e) (4)
aphelion distance Q = a · (1 + e) (5)

34
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl A special astronomical aspect
a
a
2
=b
2
+ (a⋅e)
2
⇔
a=b
√
1−e
2
(6)
Connection between Kepler’s plane-
tary orbits and the logarithmic scale
perihelion distance q = a · (1 – e) (4)
aphelion distance Q = a · (1 + e) (5)

log (b) = log (q) + log (Q)
2
34
q⋅Q=(1−e)(1+e)
1−e
2
⋅b
2
=b
2
Replacing a in Eqs. (4) and (5) by means
of Eq. (6) and multiplying q and Q yield
⇔
a
2
=b
2
+ (a⋅e)
2
⇔
a=b
√
1−e
2
(6)
Connection between Kepler’s plane-
tary orbits and the logarithmic scale
perihelion distance q = a · (1 – e) (4)
aphelion distance Q = a · (1 + e) (5)
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl A special astronomical aspect
log (b
2
) = log (q⋅Q)
⇔

log (b) = log (q) + log (Q)
2
34
q⋅Q=(1−e)(1+e)
1−e
2
⋅b
2
=b
2
So, log(b) is the arithmetic
mean of log(q) and log(Q).
Therefore, log(q), log(b),
and log(Q) follow each
other at equal distances on
the logarithmic scale. See
Q1, Q2, and Q3 on the next
slide.
Replacing a in Eqs. (4) and (5) by means
of Eq. (6) and multiplying q and Q yield
⇔
a
2
=b
2
+ (a⋅e)
2
⇔
a=b
√
1−e
2
(6)
Connection between Kepler’s plane-
tary orbits and the logarithmic scale
perihelion distance q = a · (1 – e) (4)
aphelion distance Q = a · (1 + e) (5)
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl A special astronomical aspect
log (b
2
) = log (q⋅Q)
⇔

35
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl Is there any trans-Neptunian object consistent with Q1, Q2, and Q3?
According to the geographical data in slide 15, the radius of the main semicircle is Q Q = Q Q = 223.2 m.
1 2 2 3

Satellite image:
© 2020 HERE,
DigitalGlobe,
INEGI
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl Visualization of the “Quetzalcoatl positions” as given in the table of slide 15 36
The yellow points allow the GPS data to be checked, e.g., by using HERE WeGo.

37
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl Astrophysical data of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs)
TNOs with diameters D ≥ 800 km
[8] JPL, Small-Body Database Lookup. NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech (retrieved Oct. 2021)
[9] Pluto fact sheet. (Williams, D. R.), NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (2019)
Quantities a, e, and U (orbital period): [8], exception Pluto: [9], (uncer-
tainty: 1-sigma, astronomical unit: 1 AU = 149,597,870.700 km ≈ aEarth )
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15,16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20,21]
(References
for D [10–21]
are listed in
the Appendix.)
Wikimedia Commons (detailed
description in “TNO”)

5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
Whereas nine of these objects are
completely out of range, Sedna
fits surprisingly well (GPS data).
Orbital elements of large
TNOs and comparison with
the Teotihuacán site
38

5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
Whereas nine of these objects are
completely out of range, Sedna
fits surprisingly well (GPS data).
The bold semicircle gives the best
agreement with the astronomical data.
Of the several hundred smaller TNOs,
accurately determined in astronomy,
around 99 % belong to the Kuiper Belt
and are located approximately between
8 and 9 on the given logarithmic axis.
From the four or five TNOs with an or-
bital size similar to that of Sedna, none
fit as well as Sedna and all of them are
orders of magnitude smaller than Sedna.
38
Orbital elements of large
TNOs and comparison with
the Teotihuacán site

5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
Adaption of the “Sun unit”
On the logarithmic scale (GPS data),
the Rio San Juan is positioned not at
8, but at 8.0845, which relates to the
“Sun unit” of 197 m. By modifying
this unit to 199.08 m, the river moves
exactly to 8, and we have an almost
perfect fit of the data as given in the
diagram on p. 31 according to Eq. (3).
Nevertheless, the agreement in the
histogram on the right changes. If
using 199.08 m, the points Q , Q ,
and Q shift to Q ’, Q ’, and Q ’, rep-
resented by the black dashed lines.
Even if this reduces the concordance,
the agreement with the TNO Sedna
is still remarkable.
However, this discrepancy needs fur-
ther clarification. A possible explana-
tion is given on the next slides.
1 2 3
1 2
3
39

40
Satellite image: © 2017 HERE,
2014 DigitalGlobe, INEGI
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
Alternative mapping of positions
At the Rio San Juan the avenue becomes broader
and the east side of the avenue (main axis) has a
parallel shift of about 16 to 18 meters – see slide
35. In order to avoid this shift, an alternative map-
ping of the main points at the Citadel is possible.
If we move the lower two yellow points by this
shift westwards to the positions of the red points,
the latter points are positioned almost exactly on
the Adosada platform and on the extension of the
(now continuous) main axis. Since the radius of
the semicircle is the same, the result in the pre-
vious slides remains unchanged.
Interestingly, the mismatch between point Q ’
and the correlated astronomical value (slide 39)
is about 18 m and is the same size as the shift of
the main axis. Please, note the perspective dis-
tortion visible at the Adosada platform.
2

A possible solution
of the “shift-problem”
The shift of the extended main axis (along the
east side of the avenue) is a parallel shift to the
west border of the Citadel. So, the red points R
to R shift to the points Q ’ to Q ’. We denote
the related distance R Q ’ with s, the radius of
the semicircle with r, and the distance from the
Pyramid of the Moon to point R with R .
By including the shift, the astronomical distances
are now assigned in the following way.
perihelion distance: log (q) → R2 + s – r
semi-minor axis: log (b) → R2 + s
aphelion distance: log (Q) → R2 + s + r
In this way, the shift of the main axis is not ig-
nored but precisely taken into account. Note: In
this drawing r is ca. 220.6 m due to former orbital
data of Sedna. The current value r = 223.18 m
does not yield much change. The following slide
shows the main diagram including Sedna.
41
Satellite image: © 2017 HERE,
2014 DigitalGlobe, INEGI
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
3 1 3
2 2
2 2
1

5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
A possible solution
of the “shift-problem”
The green points in the diagram on the right
are obtained using the following values:
shift s = 18 m, radius r = 223.18 m (slide 15),
“Sun unit” uSun = 199.08 m (slide 39).
On the basis of the GPS data and due to the
assignments on the preceding slide, the points
relating to Sedna are precisely in line with the
planetary data. The trend line fits almost per-
fectly to the main Eq. (3). The coefficient of
determination is 0.999901, and the Rio San
Juan (Neptune) is positioned at exactly 8.
All of the points, except the red one, are used
in the linear regression. If we omit the parallel
shift (⇒ s = 0 m), we obtain R2 = 0.999765,
and, thus, the picture is nearly the same.
One reason for the fact that the avenue be-
comes broader after passing the Rio San Juan
is to symbolize the wide space beyond Neptune.
Two other reasons are given on the next slide.
42

43
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl
A possible solution of the “shift-problem”
The second reason for the widening of the avenue could be that
most of the space within the Neptune orbit is occupied and “for-
bidden” by the other planets due to their gravitational influence.
This is not the case beyond Neptune. The third reason is the
modus operandi. The “narrow” avenue is mainly associated with
the perihelion distances; the widened avenue includes the peri-
helion distance, the aphelion distance, and the semi-minor axis.
Please note that the previous slides 40–42, concerning the shift
of the main axis at the Rio San Juan, are a preliminary attempt
to explain this phenomenon. This should be seen as a possibility
and is not strictly intended as the final solution.
Nevertheless, the overall picture is not much affected by the way
the calculation is done. Thus, we are dealing with a very robust
relation. Irrespective of the well-defined planetary correlation,
the probability that the connection with Sedna was planned by
the master builders appears to be very high.

Oort_cloud_Sedna_orbit.jpg: Image courtesy of NASA /
JPL-Caltech / Robert L. Hurt (arrangement of pictures
modified and fourth picture, the Oort cloud, omitted)
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl The solar system Sedna, detected in 2003, will
reach its perihelion in 2076.
[22] Brown, M. E.: The largest Kuiper belt objects. in “The Solar
System Beyond Neptune”, Univ. of Arizona Press (2008) 335 pdf
44
Estimated number of undetected Sedna-like objects (Sednoids): 40–120 [22]. Since the orbits
are rather different in size and shape, the number of alternatives to Sedna is small, if not zero.

45
Sedna and the distant
Sun
If the connection of the
pyramid site to Sedna
was really intended by
the master builders, the
following questions
arise:
What is so special about
Sedna, so far outside the
solar system?
Does a connection be-
tween Quetzalcoatl and
Sedna exist?
Artist’s visualization of Sedna,
author: NASA/JPL-Caltech/
R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech)
5. Temple of Quetzalcoatl

The distances a and b can be
calculated from the GPS data
By using the main axis (yellow
points) and α = arctan(a/b), we
get approx. 15.28° ± 0.11°.
46
6. Geographical alignment Basic positions and orientation of the archaeological site in Teotihuacán
If the angle is determined using
platforms on the center line of
the avenue, we obtain probably
more exactly α = 15.45° ± 0.03°.
Does this angle
have a meaning?

The distances a and b can be
calculated from the GPS data
By using the main axis (yellow
points) and α = arctan(a/b), we
get approx. 15.28° ± 0.11°.
46
If exactly 15° was intended,
the angle would describe the
apparent motion of the Sun in
the sky over one hour. This
would include the dimension
of “time.” Perhaps, the angle
was exactly 15°, e.g., in the
year 9800 BC (polar motion).
6. Geographical alignment Basic positions and orientation of the archaeological site in Teotihuacán
If the angle is determined using
platforms on the center line of
the avenue, we obtain probably
more exactly α = 15.45° ± 0.03°.

47
Something always fits?
R
2 = 0.9886
A constructed example: Correlation of the 9 essential positions
on the avenue (incl. the “asteroid barrier”) with the numbers 1–9
7. Discussion A thought about the significance

47
Something always fits?
Titius-Bode law: a [AU] = 0.4 + 0.3 · 2n with n = –∞, 0, 1, 2, ...
This means that the above R2 simply reflects the regularity
of the exponential Titius-Bode law. It is still consistent
with the significance of the planetary correlation.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, ...
R
2 = 0.9886
(By using the astronomical quantities log(q/km) and
the numbers 1–9 without 5, we obtain R2 = 0.9931.)
A constructed example: Correlation of the 9 essential positions
on the avenue (incl. the “asteroid barrier”) with the numbers 1–9
7. Discussion A thought about the significance

●The real R2 is 58 to 118 times closer to 1 than the “constructed” R2.
●There are neither too many nor too few markings on the avenue.
●The full length of the avenue is used. It is neither too long nor
too short.
●The solid barriers do not make sense, except as markers.
●The “Pyr. of the Sun” represents Earth. (makes sense, our planet)
●It simultaneously defines the position of Mercury (the first planet).
●The Pyramid of the Moon is a bold marker for the Sun (radius).
●Thus, the size relation “Moon Pyramid”–barriers is adequate.
●With Eq. (3), the eighth planet Neptune has the number 8 on both
axes in the diagram (slide 31). The “Sun point” is at the origin of
the diagram, as the Sun represents the center of the solar system.
●The Rio San Juan differs from the other markers. It reflects the tran-
sition from the planetary area to the wide trans-Neptunian space.
Accordingly, the avenue becomes broader when passing the river.
●Eq. (3) represents ten equations. The planetary correlation (R2) is
independent of the choice of the units of length, of the logarithmic
base, and of the zero position of the logarithmic scale (Pyramid of
the Moon). With Sedna we even have thirteen equations.
48
7. Discussion Some more arguments

The platform at the top of the pyramid, with its elongated shape and orientation, looks similar to the barriers.
This confirms that the pyramid is just a bold marker at the origin of the scale, representing the Sun.
(SECRETARIA DE CULTURA.-INAH.-MEX. Reproduction Authorized by the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México)

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
50
8. Summary

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
8. Summary 50

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
8. Summary 50

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
➔The 8 planets and the Sun are represented by the logarithms of the
perihelion distances and the solar radius, respectively (R = 99.98 %).
8. Summary
2
50
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
➔The 8 planets and the Sun are represented by the logarithms of the
perihelion distances and the solar radius, respectively (R = 99.98 %).
➔One barrier belongs to the asteroid belt. This leads to the question:
Did a former planet exist between Mars and Jupiter? (q ≈ 2.36 AU)
8. Summary
2
50
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
➔The 8 planets and the Sun are represented by the logarithms of the
perihelion distances and the solar radius, respectively (R = 99.98 %).
➔One barrier belongs to the asteroid belt. This leads to the question:
Did a former planet exist between Mars and Jupiter? (q ≈ 2.36 AU)
➔Some renaming “Pyramid of the Moon” → Pyramid of the Sun
seems appropriate: “Pyramid of the Sun” → Pyramid of the Earth
“Avenue of the Dead” → Avenue of the Planets
(Calzada de los Planetas)
8. Summary
2
50
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
➔The 8 planets and the Sun are represented by the logarithms of the
perihelion distances and the solar radius, respectively (R = 99.98 %).
➔One barrier belongs to the asteroid belt. This leads to the question:
Did a former planet exist between Mars and Jupiter? (q ≈ 2.36 AU)
➔Some renaming “Pyramid of the Moon” → Pyramid of the Sun
seems appropriate: “Pyramid of the Sun” → Pyramid of the Earth
“Avenue of the Dead” → Avenue of the Planets
(Calzada de los Planetas)
➔Temple of Quetzalcoatl → TNO Sedna. Does Sedna have a companion? (Adosada platform)
8. Summary
2
50
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun

➔A planetary correlation has been discovered in Teotihuacán.
➔The central avenue provides an astronomical scale.
➔Pyramids, river, barriers, and the temple define markers on the scale.
➔The 8 planets and the Sun are represented by the logarithms of the
perihelion distances and the solar radius, respectively (R = 99.98 %).
➔One barrier belongs to the asteroid belt. This leads to the question:
Did a former planet exist between Mars and Jupiter? (q ≈ 2.36 AU)
➔Some renaming “Pyramid of the Moon” → Pyramid of the Sun
seems appropriate: “Pyramid of the Sun” → Pyramid of the Earth
“Avenue of the Dead” → Avenue of the Planets
(Calzada de los Planetas)
➔Temple of Quetzalcoatl → TNO Sedna. Does Sedna have a companion? (Adosada platform)
➔The main question does not refer to correctness – within their small uncertainties, the data
are correct. The question is: “Are these findings altogether a great coincidence or not?”
According to the numbers (99.98 %), this is most probably not the case.
8. Summary
2
50
log
3
(
q
i
R
Sun
)
=d
i
u
Sun

51
8. Summary Graphical overview
The positions of the points at the Citadel correspond to the continuous main axis as shown on slide 40.
(More information is provided in the separate article “Planetary correlation of Teotihuacán.”)

Souvenirs for tourists:
Here, we have the planets!
52
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Dr. José Martínez Trinidad for
driving me to Teotihuacán in 2005. He accom-
panied me for the entire day at the pyramid site,
and thus helped to make this work possible.
My gratitude is expressed to Ms. Nicola Wilton
for accurately proofreading the English text.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) for
the permission to use the site plan of the pyramid
area of Teotihuacán (slides 4, 5, and 49).

Thank you for your attention!

Appendix References [10–21] of slide 37, retrieved October 2021 54
This is a scientific and noncommercial presentation. All contents here from H. Jelitto: (CC) BY-NC-SA 4.0. Used pictures from other copyright
holders and authors must be separately checked by the reader if they are to be used.
Use of site plan, Teotihuacán: Any reproduction of this image is regulated by the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic, and Historical Monu-
ments and its Regulations, for which the corresponding permit must be obtained from the National Institute of Anthropology and History, INAH.
This presentation was created with the free and open-source software LibreOffice (Impress, Calc, Writer), Inkscape, and GIMP using Ubuntu.
[10] Pál, A., Kiss, C., Müller, T. G., et al.: "TNOs are Cool": A survey of the trans-Neptunian region, VII. Size and surface characteristics of (90377) Sedna and 2010
EK139. Astron. Astrophys. 541 (2012) L6, DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218874
[11] Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., Assafin, M., et al.: Size, density, albedo and atmosphere limit of dwarf planet Eris from a stellar occultation. EPSC Abstracts, Vol. 6, EPSC-DPS2011-
137-8, EPS-DPS Joint Meeting (2011), Bibcode: 2011epsc.conf..137S
[12] Kiss, C., Marton, G., Parker, A. H., et al.: The mass and density of the dwarf planet (225088) 2007 OR 10. (2019), arXiv: 1903.05439, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.013
[13] Brown, M. E.: On the size, shape, and density of dwarf planet Makemake. Astrophys. J. Lett. 767/1, (2013) L7, arXiv: 1304.1041, DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L7
[14] Braga-Ribas, F., Vieira-Martins, R., Assafin, M, et al.: Stellar Occultations by Transneptunian and Centaurs Objects: results from more than 10 observed events.
RevMexAA (Serie de Conferencias), 44, 3–3 (2014), Bibcode: 2014RMxAC..44....3B
[15] Dunham, E. T., Desch, S. J., Probst, L.: Haumea’s Shape, Composition, and Internal Structure. The Astrophysical Journal 877/1 (2019) 41–51, DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13b3
[16] Ortiz, l., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al.: The size, shape, density and ring of the dwarf planet Haumea from a stellar occultation. Nature 550 (2017) 219–223,
DOI: 10.1038/nature24051
[17] Grundy, W. M., Noll, K. S., Roe, H. G., et al.: Mutual orbit orientations of transneptunian binaries. Icarus 334 (2019) 62–78, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035
[18] Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Vara-Lubiano, M., et al.: Evidence of topographic features on (307261) 2002 MS 4 surface. Europlanet Science Congress 2021. Europlanet
Society. DOI: 10.5194/epsc2021-440, EPSC2021-440. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
[19] Nimmo, F., Umurhan, O., Lisse, C. M., et al.: Mean radius and shape of Pluto and Charon from New Horizons images. Icarus 287 (2017) 12–29, arXiv: 1603.00821,
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.027
[20] Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., Müller, T., et al.: "TNOs are Cool": A survey of the trans-Neptunian region, VIII. Combined Herschel PACS and SPIRE observations of nine bright
targets at 70–500 µm. Astron. Astrophys. 555 (2013) A15, DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321329
[21] Brown, M. E., Butler, B. J.: Medium-sized satellites of large Kuiper belt objects. Astron. J. 156/4 (2018) 164–169, DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad9f2
Licenses: