>>12124845>>12124859Fundamentally you should always think about forces, this is key in classical mechanics. Torque is not actually a physical thing like a force because rotation is in no way fundamentally different than other motion. You need forces to change the direction of velocity and we found useful in the description of this motion to define torque, but it's not that torque appears out of nowhere, it is defined from the forces acting on it. The problem basically lies on treating "change in angle" as more than it is something that depends on your coordinate system (There is a reason angles are adimensional). This really means that thinking torque only wrt to a pivot actually is correct in this sense. If "rotation" exists the velocity of the object must change so there must be a force that deviates the motion of the object and for every coordinate system you chose there is a central component of this force which pulls "inwards".
Now thinking shit fundamentally is not the same as intuitively. Also intuitive doesn't mean that you can "see it". When people say you should understand x intuitively, is that you have some sort of rule of thumb or general idea on how to solve a problem even if the physical description is in some sense wrong. So people will say shit like "In order for a particle to rotate it must have angular momentum" which is at the end ambiguous but if you know classical mechanics you know what it means intuitively. Just to put an example, if I consider a particle in uniform motion then intuitively I think it has 0 angular momentum, but that is because I already think of it in a Cartesian coordinate system that aligns with the velocity vector. Fundamentally I'm not obligated to choose this system, but I'm already thinking of the problem like that. If you however take y other coordinate where the position of the object is more complicated it will also be obvious why it rotates wrt to that system.
