[HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibility Cloak

[jazmyn]

No: HPFGUIDX 49003



Angela Evans wrote:

> 
> The theories on light distortion are good and make sense, but they
> lead to all these other problems like shadows, and the actual cloak
> being invisible, etc.  I think people are trying to give the cloak's
> powers too much of a "scientific" explanation.  Magic in Potterverse
> completely disregards the laws of nature and physics, the invisibility
> cloak doesn't have to "work"in any way we can explain.  It is simply
> magic and it makes you invisible.  And not all invisibility is the
> same.  For example we CAN see the invisibility cloak (silver), but we
> (or the poor guy at Flourish and Blotts) could NOT see the Invisible
> Book of Invisibility.  I guess I just do not see this as something
> that needs to be "explained" rationally, using "muggle science" if you
> will.  It is like a wizarding radio.  If you saw a wizarding radio (or
> wireless) and it was playing some tune, you could explain how a radio
> works, how the sounds travels and comes out the speakers, but that
> simply is not how a wizarding radio works, it is just magic.
> 
> ANGELA
> 

How in fact did the poor guy at Flourish and Blotts even know for sure
the books had been delivered?  Sounds like a Fred and George kind of
scam. Sell 100 copies of 'Invisible Book of Invisibility' and pretend to
deliver them. The poor store owners would go nuts. ;)

As for Dumbledore, I suspect those glasses he wears might be magical and
allow him to see a lot of things, much like Moody's eye does.  I would
not apply muggle physics to this however, as both the glasses and
Moody's eye may in fact be 'immured' to the effects of illusion-type
magic, such as invisibility, rather then seeing infrared or whatnot.
Thus the eye is tricked, but the glasses or Moody's magic eye are not
tricked.

Jazmyn