-- reguz
At least you finally showed us your STL idea that you wanted to talk about. The meaningless and often plain wrong noise before wasn't helpful. But telling what's actually on your mind is a good step. But it doesn't mean anyone will agree, or see what you're getting at, or believe it has any value. Most ideas are just fantasy. Very likely, most of us will conclude your idea is either irrelevant to good making, or just complete nonsense. I expect it's just nonsense. But I can tell you believe there's something important about it.
When we theorize, as you have, it's very easy to mess up. There are so many ways to go wrong. We can see things that aren't actually there, like seeing animals in the shapes of clouds, or in patterns of stars. We can be wrong about cause and effect. We can wrongly fixate on a side effect and miss the central issue. We can make false chains of logic. Etc. And even when we get our hands on some idea that is actually true, we are very likely going to say it wrong, or try to develop the idea from the wrong starting point. One great danger for any theorist is to falsely extent from something true to include something false. So for a simplistic example: "I can see clouds are white, therefore they're made of cotton."
A theorist absolutly needs skeptism. Sure, it takes enthusiasm and creativity to try and develop an idea. But then you need to attack your own ideas. If you accept any little bit of falseness, then all that follows after will be non-sense. When you think you have a good idea, you need to try and rip it apart as if your life depended on it. Don't try to prove your idea, try to disprove it.
Then when you think your idea survived, devise experiments and tests. Again, don't aim to prove. Aim to discover the errors, to remove the over statements.
If your idea still seems to be standing, then ruethelessly attack the scope. Try to discover the limits of where and how the idea really applies.
Theorizing is a bit like cliff climbing, the further you climb the greater the danger of falling. Grounding the steps of your in observational/experimental challenge is like clamping im your rope for safety. Try to proceed in the smallest and most confirmed steps conceivable.
With physical vibrational systems, it's good to remember that most behaviors are limited to only some frequency ranges, and that the thing you found is only going to be one mode of behavior among many. It's never going to be the one and only thing that's important.
Lastly, when presenting an idea, don't try to discredit true things that seem to compete with your idea. Don't try to prove A not B when the truth is A and B. Silly example: if you're making the case that the gravity of the Sun pulls on Earth and everyone on it, don't try to say the gravity of the Earth doesn't also pull on people.
My favorite example of misguided theorizing comes from 1910 when Whitehead and Russell tried to prove the apparently obvious proposition that 1+1 = 2. The wanted to accomplish this by developing theoretically from the simplest possible assumptions of mathematical logic. But this didn't end up being simple. It took them several hundred pages of dense symbolic logic to get there, but they arrived where they had tried to go: 1+1=2 QED. So why so difficult to prove such a simple absolute truth? Well, a few years later the proposition was very simply refuted by counterexample. It turns out not to be an absolute truth! If you simply define 1+1=0 and 1*1=1, you get a completely consistent mathematical system with only the numbers 1 and 0. It turns out that 1 + 1= 2 only by definition, it isn't an absolute truth. Their hundreds of pages of proof were only off-track fantasy.