The most fundamental particle can't rotate, because that would imply that parts of it had different velocities from other parts... but it doesn't have parts at

The most fundamental particle can't rotate, because that would imply that parts of it had different velocities from other parts... but it doesn't have parts at all, by initial definition. So, Democritus' atoms imply that rotation is not a fundamental motion. I think every attempt to visualize this which imagines a single object rotating is doomed. Rotation inherently implies a difference in velocities, and some attractive force keeping those velocities changing to maintain a distance. So, the existence of any attractive force, together with inertia, implies rotation and the stickiness of direction of a gyroscope. But inertia itself already implied stickiness of direction, given that a change in direction would require acceleration...