I already came to this decision by attempting to find an alternative to RMS for voltage and current and discovering an alternative mathematical formulation which avoids the use of RMS and avoids the use of using AVG applied to voltage alone nor applied to current alone. Yet, when I simulated the tracing of this alternative, it turned out to deliver exactly the same numeric outcome as if I had used RMS on volts alone and RMS on current alone. So, being curious why this could be true, I wrote my alternative mathematical expression onto paper and gestaltly recognized that this was a more convoluted alternative to the more straightforward use of RMS without discretely knowing why (merely gestaltly, ie. vaguely).

I other words >>>
For the RMS of voltage, I take the AVG of power avg(V times I), and divide that by a fractional portion equal to the average of current divided by voltage avg(I / V). Since that's not quite right since it creates extreme values which are nonsensical (ie, in deference to reality), I chose to finalize this mathematical expression by taking its square root. Then, I used the inverse ratio for extracting current from the average of power and took its square root. I bet, using your android mind, you could easily show me how these alternative mathematical expressions are exactly equal to calculating RMS. Here they are >>>

For voltage >>>
SQRT(AVG(V(Bulb100W)*I(Bulb100W))/AVG(I(Bulb100W)/V(Bulb100W))) ?=? RMS(V(Bulb100W))

For current >>>
SQRT(AVG(V(Bulb100W)*I(Bulb100W))/AVG(V(Bulb100W)/I(Bulb100W))) ?=? RMS(I(Bulb100W))