At first, some scientists (including Einstein!) rejected Schwarzschild's ideas. Others were intrigued and began searching the skies for real black holes. Just decades later, they found the first of them. —A Black Hole Is NOT a Hole, Carolyn Cinami DeCristofano What can be concluded about presenting new theories in the field of science? Presenting new theories is hard because it usually does not lead anywhere. It might be met with skepticism, but it could lead to great discoveries. Other scientists always support new theories that are presented. A theory must be fully accepted in order to be credible.

It might be met with skepticism, but it could lead to  great discoveries.

Explanation:

Most of the time in the scientific community, new research is met with scrutiny as the people are wont to hold up tot he older tested models. Most of the new theories are rigorously tested by various number of scientists who then put it through scientific analysis. If the theory does hold up this, it becomes accepted. Scientific community only accepts such theories that pass the scrutiny but often the ones that do are the ones that bring real change into the field.

the author develops a cold, and scared tone. making the reader shudder with fear, and suddenly become cold. i'm guessing that he's writing a scary novel, or maybe about a chilly december night.

emerson essentially believes that traveling is overrated. he supports this perspective through an initial focus on "the idea" of places like italy, england, and egypt, and the fascination of "educated americans" with them. he argues that those places only took on the grand, majestic ideas that they represent because "they who made england, italy, or greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth." yes, those places are grand, but only because they so clearly represent the places that they are. the art and culture of italy, england, and egypt is authentic, and therefore significant.

plz mark brainliest