No, but what's important is that the idea was physically incarnated in the form of writing. The act of writing is what counts.

1) the theory of relativity was executed by people who used that idea to develop nuclear weapons, satellites, GPS systems, semiconductor electronics etc.

Here are two 'proofs':

2) According to the patent office, if you can write down in sufficient detail your idea so that "a person of reasonable skill in the trade" can implement it, then you can patent it. (assuming other conditions like non-obviousness etc apply). Even if someone patents before you, you can still patent it (if you wrote it down with proof of date) and claim royalties. (example, the laser).

3) Have you read about the numerous lawsuits in the entertainment world about ideas for a TV show or book being stolen and executed? There are no prototypes to steal - just ideas, but they carry weight in court.

"if you can write down in sufficient detail your idea so that 'a person of reasonable skill in the trade' can implement it," you have in fact implemented it. Your approach is just less efficient; in most areas a whiteboard is not an effective way to be sure your design works, that you have considered all possibilities.

You are persistently ignoring all the execution that goes into nuclear weapons, GPS, etc. If you think implementing nuclear weapons was trivial in the 50s and 60s (50 years after the theory was in place), talk to israel. In fact the huge difference in times different applications have entered the market is an indicator that the theory of relativity is not the bottleneck. Something else is: the engineering constraints. Why have science fiction writers consistently anticipated new technologies? Because thinking up the idea could happen before it was practical to implement. Should those writers receive royalties for geostationary satellites or submarines?

Lots of theories go into each new application, rather than one theory spawning lots of new applications.

Not all ideas are worthless. But until you have shown there are no subtle deal-breakers (think fusion reactors) there is no reason to assume your idea has value in the current historical, social, economic context.

Valuing ideas may be right in the entertainment world. Do you want to move?

"you have in fact implemented it."

false.

"Lots of theories go into each new application, rather than one theory spawning lots of new applications."

both happen.

"But until you have shown there are no subtle deal-breakers (think fusion reactors) there is no reason to assume your idea has value in the current historical, social, economic context."

???

??? yourself. Explain your reasons for disagreement, and what you didn't understand. Reread my scifi writer example.

Should these receive royalties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_satellite#Geostationary_Satellites (Arthur C Clarke)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Submarines_in_fiction_and_games (Jules Verne)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter#History (Leonardo da Vinci)

Since you didn't say ??? to it, did you understand my argument about bottlenecks?

I dont understand.

Peace.

"The act of writing is what counts"

really?

So you will agree that writing our ideas down on the YC application form made them valuable?

(which is precisely what PG is arguing against).