Editing Kepler's Supernova (section)

===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>