Just proves how shit the education systems are out there and how they teach nothing but parrot learning. The question hasn’t even remotely been answered, in fact, the reason why it’s considered to both be a wave and a particle is to try and account for the flaws in both theories. It doesn’t suddenly transform to a wave or to a particle depending on what it’s doing, it’s just that we don’t understand what’s going on and this is the best explanation we can give at the moment. So it is NOT both a particle and a wave, it is neither, but the best way we can describe it ATM is in this way.
There’s another thing that is commonly misunderstood from thesis. The Uncertainty principle is not there to explain this difference, it’s a rule of thumb that one day will be replaced by something that hopefully doesn’t involve uncertainty. Einstein *hasn’*t yet been proved wrong when he said “God doesn’t play dice”. There are plenty of objections to the uncertainty principle (Schrodinger perhaps being the most misunderstood as I’ve explained before in this forum somewhere).
I am assuming you got this from Hubble’s finding, if so, what do you think is a proper explanation for the phenomena of stars all appearing to be red-shifted when they are at a certain distance away from us?
Furthermore, in connection to your example of a ball, escape velocity, curvature, and the fact that it would straighten out once far enough from the Earth. I wanted to mention a theory an acquaintence of mine shared with me about straight lines. He suggests that they don’t exist, the reason being is that here on earth we cannot get something to be absolutely straight…straightness is only theoretical just like the perfect circle. But he goes on to say, that scientists are convinced by their calculations of space debri movement, claiming that in space a thing will move absolutely straight if not affected by any other force. By the principle of momentum and the lack of friction in space suggests that a thing will move in the exact direction another force propels it in. But my acquaintance suggests that this only appears to be true because in space we aren’t dealing with something small, like measuring whether a table is straight or not. We are dealing with trajectory, and when dealing with trajectory it is more difficult to see the imperfection of the straight line. He says that the reason we believe it to travel in a straight line is because it appears that way, but because we cannot see the ends of the line we cannot suggest imperically and without a doubt that it moves in an absolute straight line. Only when we see both ends of the line and are able to measure the line from beginning to end will we be able to say, with utmost certainty, that something moves in a straight line. Although I am not convinced, I cannot find a flaw. Maybe you can help…