Hypervelocity fragments ?

Only through the initial gas wave, but it'll disperse very close.

Also, you'd hear them a bit if they're close or if you're touching a medium like ship hull

Explosions would be the same, but would spread out much faster due to lack of resistance, at pretty much orbital velocities perhaps, and therefore just looking like a flash with a cone of gas for 300ms or so, then some more particles and depressurisation. Also, very sudden change in velocity, explosion working like a thrust.

More concerning is that barely any movies represent correct orbital mechanics and space ships. They often just took planes and made them fly in a dark void where everything's close and slow.

The important condition is brownian motion due to sufficient temperature inside the lifeform which allow known random mechanisms to act or form.

Imagine incredibly ear rupturing, sky tearing screaming. That should approximate the winds.

That depends on what's sensing the light at the end, your eyes or a camera. If the eyes, then it would look like the night sky, but with stars everywhere. Nebulas would look like grey clouds in the stars. One has to remember that they'll always be pinpoints though, because they're too far away, but some multi-starsystems might resolve separation between stars. If you're using a camera, then what can be seen is increased a lot, an exposure of 2 seconds can reveal colour too. But the sky is moving from our view as our Earth rotates, and under magnification, that's faster and trails out exposures, so a counter-rotating mount with a motor becomes required. It allows the view to remain perfectly still and to take longer exposures of the stars, allowing much deeper views with colours. Such a big telescope usually can't fit on consumer Equatorial mounts like that (10" is quite huge), but a 6" can. Usually smaller telescopes with better mounts are used for DSOs (Deep-Sky Objects). Best is to look on r/astrophotography and r/telescopes (there's a pinned buyer's guide), there you'd see many impressive Deep-Sky Objects captured on even smaller telescopes, about 3", their price usually comes from the EQ motorized mount and camera. A great starter is an 8" reflector dobsonian. The larger the aperture, the greater the resolution and light collection. That's a balance of size and power, so to speak. Planets require large aperture, but no motorization, DSOs require a motor-Mount, but can be shot on smaller optics as well.

Well, at least planets don't need dark skies. Can be seen during daytime.

If you're thinking about it, I recommend reading the pinned guide on r/telescopes and general look up on there and r/astrophotography.

Resolution depends on aperture, bro...

I looked up, and it seems to be around $2500 or so... But it depends on where you buy, and if there are used parts.

Telescopes have become pretty affordable.

Which then aren't really forces but same geometric effects as gravity? I thought that gravity is caused by motion through time combined with spacetime geometry. Kind of like a treadmill on which we roll, and if it curves forces appear. It doesn't make much intuitive sense so far to me, so the only way to understand is to go to math, and the wrong trampoline analogy only makes it worse.

The force then is still equal. People forget that acceleration depends on mass too, and that's why people fall towards Earth more than Earth falls towards people.