On a second thought, Hydrogen makes it even worse, as you can never achieve neutrality. One side will always be positive and the other negative, depending on the location of the electron. But we do not see Hydrogen radicals as dipoles, do we?

I agree that at large distances, the positive and negative attractions neutralize. However, only for a nucleus that is not assumed a point charge. For a point charge, the neutrality is never reached. For a non-zero diameter, the near field will for sure not end within a few diameters of the atom. On collision, they should therefore interact and produce magnetic fields (through rotation). This is not observed. On the contrary, ideal gases behave like billiard balls in their behaviour. How is this explained?

@CosmasZachos Thank you, I missed this. Do you want to put this as an answer? I'll accept it.

@annav Thank you for taking attention to the question. I agree that we have a different view on atoms now, but the paper of Crowther describes an experiment whose results can be reproduced to the present. Could you therefore please name the newer experiments that favoured Moseleys spectral lines over Crowther? Also, since you are very experienced, could you help out with this other question physics.stackexchange.com/questions/670752/… Thank you

@knzhou I want to add that I appreciate the time you spend on this. It is a difficult question. And you are also right that the opposite particle under the real circumstances has to be pushed, because the only way to push directly is the EM force. But the closer particle will always be affected to a larger effect and thus the question of how to stop the nucleus with a 10**4 heavier mass is still in question. Go away a little from the textbook and start thinking a little more towards falsification.

@knzhou You are right with your example and yes it is basic physics. When you bind the rock to a rope you limit its degrees of freedom and thus simple vector arithmetic gives you the resulting force acting on the rock. But unfortunately it does not apply as there are no ropes attached to either electrons or the earth. So instead of claiming I do not understand something, explain the question I posed: Two attracting particles, and you push (or accelerate) one of them in addition to the acceleration due to the attraction, you claim this pushes the opposite particle?

@garyp Interesting, and you really think this will PUSH the sun? The earth can only pull as far as I understood. So the question is outstanding. If you have two attracting particles and you PUSH one of them, you really think this will PUSH the other particle? Is everybody here now inventing new physics?

@knzhou Would you be fine if I put this question out on its own here on so. Just to be clear: If I apply a constant force to the earth each time she comes by and wait a trillion years, that will move the sun? Is that the right wording?

So you are telling me if I take two attracting particles and I push on one side while they are still apart that will push the other particle in the direction of the push?

Are you kidding me? What kind of impulse transfer? Between a positive and a negative particle? And according to your answer pushing against the earth will stop the sun? May I remind you that the absolute difference in mass between an electron and a gold nucleus is 5 orders of magnitude.

@hit The nucleus will be not in the center of the atom anymore. Its mass is 4 orders of magnitude heavier than the mass in the shell. The nucleus should simply hit the shell like you would hit the steering wheel if you are in a car crash and you have no seat belt fastened. The law of inertia is still valid. Almost all the kinetic energy is in the nucleus.

@Solomon What do you mean by attached? To my knowledge the attachment of nucleus and shell happens due to the EM force alone, there are no other forces governing the outer regions of the atom.