Editing Kepler's Supernova (section)

==Controversies==
Astronomers of the time (including Kepler) were concerned with observing the conjunction of [[Mars]], [[Jupiter]], and [[Saturn]], which they saw as an auspicious conjunction linked to the [[Star of Bethlehem#Planetary conjunction|Star of Bethlehem]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Mosley |first1=John |title=Common Errors in "Star of Bethlehem" Planetarium Shows |url=https://www.ips-planetarium.org/page/a_mosley1981 |website=www.ips-planetarium.org |publisher=International Planetarium Society |access-date=4 March 2025 |language=en |date=1981}}</ref> However, cloudy weather prevented Kepler from making observations.  [[Wilhelm Fabry]], [[Michael Maestlin]], and [[Helisaeus Roeslin]] were able to make observations of the conjunction on 9 October, but did not record the supernova.<ref name="BG">{{cite journal|last1=Burke-Gaffney|first1=W.|title=Kelper and the Star of Bethlehem|journal=Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada|date=1937|volume=31|pages=417–425|url=http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1937JRASC..31..417B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf|access-date=21 January 2018|bibcode=1937JRASC..31..417B}}</ref> The first recorded observation in Europe was by [[Lodovico delle Colombe]] in northern Italy on 9 October 1604.<ref>Delle Colombe L., ''Discorso di Lodovico Delle Colombe nel quale si dimostra che la nuova Stella apparita l'Ottobre passato 1604 nel Sagittario non è Cometa, ne stella generata, ò creata di nuovo, ne apparente: ma una di quelle che furono da principio nel cielo; e ciò esser conforme alla vera Filosofia, Teologia, e Astronomiche dimostrazioni'', Firenze, Giunti, 1606.</ref> Kepler was only able to begin his observations on 17 October while working at the imperial court in [[Prague]] for [[Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor|Emperor Rudolf II]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/Kepler/kepler.html |title=Bill Blair's Kepler's Supernova Remnant Page |access-date=7 October 2009 |archive-date=16 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316154134/http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/Kepler/kepler.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>  The supernova was subsequently named after him, even though he was not its first observer, as his observations tracked the object for an entire year. These observations were described in his book ''[[De Stella Nova|De Stella nova in pede Serpentarii]]'' ("On the new star in Ophiuchus's foot", Prague 1606).

===Delle Colombe–Galileo controversy===
In 1606, Delle Colombe published ''Discourse of Lodovico delle Colombe'' in which he shows that the "Star Newly Appeared in October 1604 is neither a Comet nor a New Star" and where he defended an [[On the Heavens|Aristotelian view]] of [[cosmology]] after [[Galileo Galilei]] had used the occasion of the supernova to challenge the Aristotelian system.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k316468t.image |title=Discorso di Lodovico delle Colombe |language=it |first=Lodovico |last=delle Colombe |year=1606}}</ref> The description of Galileo's claims is as follows:

<blockquote>Galileo explained the meaning and relevance of [[parallax]], reported that the nova displayed none, and concluded, as a certainty, that it lay beyond the moon. Here he might have stopped, having dispatched his single arrow. Instead he sketched a theory that ruined the Aristotelian cosmos: the nova very probably consisted of a large quantity of airy material that issued from the earth and shone by reflected sunlight, like Aristotelian comets. Unlike them, however, it could rise beyond the moon. It not only brought change to the heavens, but did so provocatively by importing corruptible earthy elements into the pure quintessence. That raised heaven-shattering possibilities. The interstellar space might be filled with something similar to our atmosphere, as in the physics of the Stoics, to which Tycho had referred in his lengthy account of the nova of 1572. And if the material of the firmament resembled that of bodies here below, a theory of motion built on experience with objects within our reach might apply also to the celestial regions. "But I am not so bold as to think that things cannot take place differently from the way I have specified."<ref>Heilbron, John L. (2010). ''Galileo''. Oxford University Press, p. 120.</ref></blockquote>

===Kepler–Roeslin controversy===
In Kepler's ''De Stella Nova'' (1606), he criticized Roeslin concerning this supernova. Kepler argued that in his [[astrology|astrological]] prognostications, Roeslin had picked out just the two comets, the [[Great Comet of 1556]] and 1580. Roeslin responded in 1609 that this was indeed what he had done. When Kepler replied later that year, he simply observed that by including a broader range of data Roeslin could have made a better argument.<ref name="Fritz">{{cite web|last1=Fritz|first1=Gerd|title=Dialogical Structures in 17th Century Controversies|url=http://www.festschrift-gerd-fritz.de/files/publ_hp/fritz_dialogical_structures.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.festschrift-gerd-fritz.de/files/publ_hp/fritz_dialogical_structures.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|website=www.festschrift-gerd-fritz.de|publisher=Gerd fritz|access-date=21 January 2018}}</ref>