So how can you apparate to somewhere you've never seen before but still know the location?

 

Because there's a lot more to a thing than what it looks like? All you need to do is focus on the location. The name of the location seems adequate to me. The key is the focus element, so as to avoid any lack of certainty/indecision which could cause you to splinch.

 

So if someone wanted to apparate to France for example, would just focusing on France be enough to apparate there, or would he need a city specifically, or a street or how general or accurate must it be?

 

To finally address the topic of the thread itself, I see no reason that you could not apparate to a location that you viewed in a pensieve or through legilimancy. What rule says that an imitation cannot match the original(ha)? Do you think that Harry could replicate the court scene by using his memory of Dumbledore's memory?

If knowing about a place is enough to apparate to it such as the Godric's Hollow example @Sataniel referenced earlier, then having a clear image of a specific place should be more than enough. In fact, pensieves are able to extract the very essence or truth of a memory more reliably than mere mortal memory, so if anything it'd be easier to apparate to a place you've seen in a pensieve than even one you are retrieving from your own memories.

 

Alright thank you everyone for helping me clear this up. The concensus seems to be yes, which is what I was hoping but not expecting.

 

But it doesn't, not from every source of heat at least, because we know for a fact that Fiendfyre isn't affected by said charm. Also, just because you can do something relative to your own universes' strength, does not automatically mean that you are unbeatable in other universes, it's an argument from ignorance. It's like saying that if my Kevlar Vest works against a .22 it will obviously work against every other round too.

Of course, only in one direction, and it doesn't block the Unforgivable Curses, and possibly some other spells as Voldemort decided to use a Conjured shield instead during the Battle in OOTP

But seen by Magical Eyes?

There are always exceptions to the rule with HP Magic, even the Deathly Hallows had limitations.

Not at all, a Wizard is only capable of casting as long as they're capable of consciously stating the spell in their mind, but even that takes time.

Why debate when all you use is headcanon as your arguments?

 

You'll note in every one of your examples, it is not mundane nature overcoming magical nature, but magic nullifying magic. Fiendfyre is explicitly not normal fire, it is cursed, magical fire. The shield charm defends you from harm, except when other magic supersedes it. The invisibility cloak makes you invisible against detection, but magic can bypass it. I still think that allowing Moody to see Harry with his eye was a bit of a cock up on Rowling's part given that it's one of the Hallows, but that is hardly the biggest plot hole in canon.

A wizard is only able to prevent harm if he's taken actions to prevent that harm? Brilliant counterpoint. Sure, Dumbledore could be speed ganked in various universes if he didn't know that speed ganking was something he needed to defend against.

As for headcanon, I didn't pull the mechanics of HP magic out of my ass. We've had this debate once or twice in the last decade. Here's a thought experiment for you as regards the explosion example. Could a shield charm defend you against a firecracker? If yes, could it defend you against a stick of dynamite? If yes, could it then defend you against a missile? Where do you draw the line, and why? HP magic doesn't consume mana and the shield doesn't have hit points, it's a magical construct that trumps mundane nature. The difference between a firecracker and a missile is qualitatively no different from the difference between a match and a bunsen burner. It's a question of scale, when magic is only overcome by a difference in nature/type.

 

I have to partially retract my previous statement.

https://www.jkrowling.com/welcome-to-my-new-website/

So visualising a place where you want to go is an option.

 

"Knowledge of the terrain" is kind of vague, but "the ability to visualize it clearly" is much easier to work with.

Also,

The accio apparently summons objects at near light speed?

 

But if you wanted to displace someone's footing or position in a duel, wouldn't mobilicorpus do the same thing? Same thing when trying to save someone who was falling off a cliff. Is summoning their clothes the best method?

 

No feats suggesting it can, therefore it can't.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of force seems like a pretty easy line to draw, especially when we haven't seen the shield tank anything close to that.

 

I'd say "Yes" in regard to apparition.

Rowling said Newt traveled to New York by boat, not only because tricking the No-Maj checkpoints were much easier than tricking wizarding checkpoints, but also because apparition require knowledge and familiarity with the terrain and surroundings of the area to which they were trying to apparate. How you obtained that knowledge and/or familiarity with a specific area seem unimportant to me.

 

That makes sense. Any idea how portkeys are made?

 

Was having a convo with a friend about this very topic today, and I remembered something. The Taboo allowed for the snatchers to apparate directly to the people who said Voldemort's name. They can't have known the exact terrain or visualized it unless the Taboo comes with a projector that gives them a view of the area, so there must be much more flexible rules regarding what "visualizing a location" means.

 

To be clear, the JKR quote says "knowledge of the terrain" OR "visualising the location", not both. The former is rather vague but from the Godric's Hollow apparition, as well as the Taboo one, it seems to be a reference to knowing where a place is (i.e. can you name it and put it on a map?).