Without getting into the whole "wandless magic" debate, I'm drawn back to that Deathly Hallows quote:

This implies that normally one Apparates with a wand. Does it imply that Apparition without a wand is impossible?

Is Ron attempting something known to be impossible, out of sheer desperation, or is he attempting something that's considered to be difficult and dangerous, but possible?

If the former, then Ron is being a panicky idiot (which is consistent with how he's depicted in the movies, but he's really not that stupid in the books). Luna's reaction doesn't read to me as, "Hey, you can't Apparate without a wand, moron!" but "We've already tried that; they've made sure we can't Apparate out of here."

IIRC, Harry Apparated himself onto a roof at one point as a child, when being chased by Dudley. (I think this was mentioned in SS/PS.) So if children can Apparate with accidental magic, it stands to reason that an adult wizard doing so without a wand might be unlikely and dangerous, but not impossible.

 

Just as wandless magic would be. But since we don't see any controlled wandless magic (bar book one) we shouldn't just assume that since it's possible for accidental magic it's possible for adults too.

And you have to remember that Luna considers many impossible / not existing things to be common.

 

Actually I think we can, unless you think children's accidental magic is something entirely different from adult magic. Children seem able to do things by chance that an adult can do predictably with a wand. It's the fact that children don't have wands and don't know what they're doing that makes such effects random.

She considers many creatures and conspiracy theories whose existence is dubious to be common; I don't recall her ever expressing a belief in being able to do things that violated what other wizards understood about magic. She's eccentric and believes in some strange things, but she's not stupid or ill-informed about how magic works.

 

I always got the feeling that accidental magic was merely the wizard's magic reacting to emotions rather than rational thought, as normal wand magic does. That's why it's so random, because it doesn't have a foundation of 'I want to do this', rather it's based on 'ohmygod!ohmygod!ohmygod!I'mgonnadiesomebodysaveme!'

 

Accidental magic was at least somewhat explained by Rowling, on her website (when ask if Harry was a Metamorphmagus).


"In Harry's extreme youth, he produced some impressive bits of uncontrolled magic when under stress, including making his own hair re-grow overnight after a particularly brutal haircut from Aunt Petunia"

and

"Anyway: before they have received training, young witches and wizards are prone to unstable surges of power, often accidentally producing effects that they may have to train for a few years to be able to reproduce deliberately. Their magical ability is bottled up for weeks at a time and then, when made angry or frightened, it simply explodes out of them, sometimes (as in the case of the vanishing glass in the chapter of the same name, Philosophers Stone) causing at least as much inconvenience to themselves as others.[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"
[/FONT]

 

Nothing to do with wandless but what is the difference between Disapparate and Apparate.

 

Depends on the POV, basically.

For example: there are two people, and you want the audience to follow te person apparating, then:

Having said goodbye to Harry, Dumbledore apparated back to Hogwarts.​

If you want the audience to stay with the other person, then:

Having said his goodbyes, Harry watched as Dumbledore disapparated from Mr. Weasley's toolshed.​

 

Essentially, or my take on it, is that Apparition is merely a force of will for the wizard in question. It would probably take far more concentration than a wand use would, because I see the wands as a foci, of sorts. The wands make it easier to cast, but anything you can do with a wand you can do with more concentration and possibly a bit more magic. Regardless, at least in my opinion, anything you can do with a wand, you can do without. Of course, some idiots, like ickle Won-won, well, they probably couldn't cast wandless magic to save their lives. But, if you look at, say, Dumbledore or Voldemort, then you've got accomplished wizards who could probably do quite a few things without their wand. iirc, in the fifth movie, Dumbledore uses both hands to keep his water prison up. This may or may not have anything to do with it, but he's probably doing both wandless and wand magic.

 

Really? Because I'm wondering where -besides fanon, you've taken this understanding from. It's not in any canon that I remember.

 

In the first sentence I stated that it's my take on it. Doesn't mean it's right. I was throwing my two cents in, nothing else. There's this funny thing about different people. We have different opinions on things. I very much doubt that every single reader of the Harry Potter series will have the same opinion as you or I do.

 

I think I remember Hagrid saying that not everybody was able to apparate during Harry's first visit to Diagon Alley. Same thing was later said about the animagus transformation. Could it be that in these two instances wands are used as a tool to help with the wizard’s concentration?

 

This could go on forever, everyone is not going to agree on either with or with out, so why not just go with what you believe based on what you've read in the books and don't try to argue about it.Yes, this is a forum and a good place to be used for debate but there is no solid evidence to one or the other, all that is happening now is people repeating themselves or repeating what others have said. It gets annoying.

 

That's like every other thread about Magical theory or Muggle v. Wizard.

We just don't have enough to support one side (or have too much supporting opposing sides). But that gets to the point where you have to either say 'Fuck Magical Theory!' or keep arguing.

 

If you'd take a second to look, you'd realize that Agnostics Puppet asked for,

I'm pretty sure that means he's asking for canonical proof about whether or not Apparition requires a wand. Your take on it is about as useful to the final conclusion as :banana:.

Yeah, you can say it. I'm not telling you that you can or cannot. I'm calling you a tool for adding irrelevant information to a thread that will just confuse others as to the final point.

"But I thought someone said that a witch or wizard can do anything, with enough will power. Their only limitations are in their mind, right?"

It happened in earlier threads like this, where people decided to give their little tidbit of arbitrary nonsense.

 

I always though you didn't need one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a wand isn't necessary for an Animagus to transform. I assumed Apparition worked along similar principles.