Don't know if JKR had anything to do with the information on it, but it seems plausible: 3,5m is about twice the height of an average man.

 

Talking about height, what is Tom Riddle's height? And Dumbledore's?

 

Yep, a simple glance at the back of Philosopher's Stone reveals so much about his appearance.

 

Holy shit, you must really love the movies to buy this. This is more than I spent with movies and series in my whole life.

 

It's been a while since I've read book 6. Is it ever explicitly stated what is thought when nonverbally casting? It's just saying the incantation in your head, right?

 

I seem to recall Harry thinking 'levicorpus' and that does the trick. However, I doubt that's all that's required since nonverbal spell casting is a difficult NEWT-level topic which pretty much everyone has difficulty with.

 

Wasn't levicorpus a special case? If Snape wrote "nonverbal" right next to the spell, I'd think that's because it's either really easy to do nonverbally and/or only works nonverbally. Whereas if you tried to cast a "normal" spell nonverbally it might be either difficult or impossible depending on how much the spell depends on the word. For example, Unforgivables don't appear to be possible to cast nonverbally.

Speaking of which, when the silenced DE cursed Hermione in the Department of Mysteries, do we know if it was a specific dark curse or a flubbed Unforgivable? I think I remember someone saying "it's a good thing he was silenced when he cursed her" but nothing beyond that.

 

Dolohov's curse on Hermione was a gout of purple flame. Dark? Most likely. Unforgivable? Probably not.

As for silently cast Unforgivables, Riddle fires a number of silent AKs at Dumbledore in the Atrium, IIRC.

I also think Harry's Imperius Curse in DH might have been silent, since he had to cast it stealthily.

 

Bellatrix also casts a silent Killing Curse at the start of HBP.

 

I've been wondering what makes one spell more difficult to cast than another. For the AK, it's mentioned that you need to put a lot of will behind it, and you need very happy memories for the Patronus. But what about other spells? Why would vanishing a feather be harder than levitating it?

Also, it's said that a Horcrux is indestructable, and Neville has to use the Basilisk venom-impregnated sword to kill Nagini. In the movies, Ron cast something that looked like the Avada Kedavra at her, and it had no effect. So wouldn't Harry be nigh indestructible as well? I understand that he was almost killed by Basilisk venom in COS, but what about other wounds? The scars from Umbridge's detentions?

I may be missing something here, and feel free to slap me across the face with it. At the same time, though, I think the premise of the latter could make a half-decent fic. Harry thinks that his invulnerability is the Power in the prophecy, and when he finds out that he's a Horcrux, pretty much the only option would be to destroy his body. Which would neutralize the possibility of returning from the dead.

 

To destroy a horcrux you need only destroy it "beyond magical repair." As a living being, Neville likely did not need to use the Sword of Gryffindor to destroy Nagini — after all once a person or creature is dead they are already beyond magical repair. Any death would have probably sufficed. And one cannot take what happens in the movies as good evidence of canon except to the movies.

 

If magic is more mystical than realistical in nature, we can simply say that it's just magic.

But I hate this explanation, so let's just assume that magic abides by laws of physics. To levitate a feather, you need to creater a power that will work in opposite direction than gravitational force. That power needs to be greater than weight of a feather multiplied by ten.

I don't know how much power would be needed to vanish a feather, but I can imagine that it would be far greater than power requirements to lift it (which are negligible). It seems logical to me.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Physics vs Magic argument has been done to death hear. If you bring in the concept of gravity, then the object levitated to a height will also have work done on it, and will also possess energy. Where does the energy come from?

Magical cores are taboo around here, unless I'm much mistaken.

 

That's true, but you asked first. You started this. Don't ask if you don't want want to hear an answer. I honestly don't know what kind of answer you expected. Your original question has two possible answers:
1) It's how magic works.
2) That physical one I described.

From wizard that uses a spell.

 

They make no sense.

That said, magic obeys its own internally consistent rules. Those rules may not be equivalent to the ones the characters believe are true, but they are there. I just put the difficulty of some magic over others to be a matter of some spells requiring more skill and talent than others. Like how Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata requires more skill and talent to play than Jingle Bells.

 

Also, was there an edition of Harry Potter where Dolores Umbridge's name was spelt as Delores? This mistake seems to be ubiquitous on FF.net. A different language, maybe? AFAIK, Trelawney's the only one whose name is spelt differently in two versions of the book.

 

No, I don't think so. People make this mistake because Delores is actually a real name (probably found in most spellcheckers too) whereas Dolores is a pun, if you can even call it that, on the word dolorous and found only in HP.

 

That indestructibility only applies to a properly-made horcrux with all the personal defensive enchantments; not 'one night stand/he looks nothing like me, your honor' accidental horcruxes like Harry.

 

In Brazil, in one the book was Delores, if I'm not mistaken.