i meant i already did everything on that
Although a model can be used to represent a scientific hypothesis, they are not like terms, and should not be used interchangeably. A model is just that, a 'model', usually graphic or physical (3-D), utilized to represent how a given scientific idea ought to be conceived; whereas, a scientific hypothesis is a bit of speculation or conjecture, as to what might occur, or how things will react/proceed. A scientific hypothesis has not been confirmed yet, therefore, it has no real predictive capabilities. Once it IS confirmed, it becomes a (bona-fide) theory, and only then can it truly have predictive success. A theory can predict the future course of events, a model may or may not accurately represent that theory.Keep in mind, some models are not even INTENDED to correctly/accurately represent said theories. They're often used to correctly understand certain phenomena - like the 'rubber sheet analogy' and gravitation. Your definition sounds more like a hypothesis or theory than a 'model'. This is often a problem with scientists not being very keen in the 'Philosophy of Science', where terminology is taken VERY seriously, and always clarified adequately.This is why many people say things like: Evolution, it's only a theory. Well, O.K., if by 'theory' you mean in the vernacular, like common folk would use it; but, if you're using 'Theory' like real (accurate) scientists would, then evolution is no more or less of a theory than gravity. When people say, I have a theory, they usually mean it how a scientist would say, I have a hypothesis; once confirmed through repeated experiments, it becomes a true theory! (a la Newton, Einstein, etc.) I hope this helped some.
Go your local home center hardware store and they will fix you up. Also consult Yahoo Discover at the top of this page for answers. Pay attention to spelling. Type in soldering copper pipe. Good luck
