Question: This questions regards to doing force calculation using vectors. This image here should display my problem [![image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SjXc5.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SjXc5.jpg).

In basic newtonian physics, the normal force = force of gravity \* cosine (angle of inclination). $$F\_N = F\_G \times \cos{\theta}$$

To be clearer:

$$F\_N = (x\_G, y\_G) \times \cos{\theta}$$ $$F\_N = (0, 9.8) \times \cos{\theta}$$ $$F\_N = (0, 9.8\cos{\theta})$$

The problem is not calculating this value but representing it as a 2D vector format. How is the **x-component** of $F\_N = 0$, when the diagram (according to the direction of where the $F\_N$ is pointing) clearly shows that the **x-component** should have a value? I believe I have messed up my calculations. Could someone please help me? Thanks in advance!

EDIT:

The **x-component** of $F\_N$ should have a value other than $0$, otherwise, if it was = 0, it would be pointing straight up or down. This does not seem to be occurring in my calculations.

Answer: 
Is there a well-defined “speed relative to the universe" and is there a well-defined "central point" of the universe are 2 different questions.

As far as central point is concerned, there is indeed no such point.

Speed relative to the universe is also strictly not well-defined, but the frame of the cosmic background radiation is sometimes considered as some kind of stationary rest frame of the universe, relative to which other events can be described. But this is not a "privileged" frame of reference, just a convenient frame of reference to describe any kind of events anywhere in the universe.
> 
> Is there any sort of Absolute Universal (as in of-the-universe) Frame of Reference?
> 
> 
> 

Sometimes the [CMB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy) is considered to be a stationary frame of reference for the universe. But as per this link, one should not consider the CMB as the "single absolute frame of reference" for the universe. We can do things like measure the speed of astronomical objects, like galaxies, relative to the CMB.

> 
> the expansion of the Universe doesn't have a central point ... it's not expanding "away from a point" ... everything is just expanding away from everything else uniformly?
> 
> 
> 

This is true. The expansion of the universe is not happening from a point, but instead it is happening everywhere.

The idea of "a fixed "central" point of the universe" lacks a coherent definition according to standard cosmological models.