My question is this. I have been taught in every textbook, physics lecture, and chemistry lecture that the net charge of a stable atom is 0. The result of that should be a null electric field. But looking at any model of an atom since the electrons are spaced out significantly from the nucleus it's easy to see that the electric field is equivalent to a charge between -1 and 0 for any value outside the atom if you assume the cloud to be a sphere (such as the filled S orbital of helium). Experiments also show that most atoms are not magnetic (at least to any consistent degree, not sure about dynamic equilibrium). This isn't possible if electrons actually move with any significance according to the maxwell equations. Since moving negative charges means a dynamic electric field. I haven't done the exact math to prove the impossibility of dynamic equilibrium but it doesn't seem very likely giving the geometric concepts. Calculating the field potential outside the atom is fairly easy for spheical orbits like those believed to comprise the s sub-shell. We can model the two protons as a point charge (of +2) since the distance between them is much less than the distance between the protons and the electrons (when they are squared the difference ends up less than 1/(2502) now assume lowest energy configuration (a 1D line of a negative electron at -r a +2 positive charge at 0 and another negative value at r). Doing raw calculations the electron repulsion outweighs any attractive value. (This calculation is actually independent of r as since they all use the same value of r it cancels out into simple geometric values). Thing is I extended this type of calculation into spherical shapes into the Pi - bonds assuming best case scenario (no additional repulsion from inner electrons). ... didn't get any better in fact it just got magnified. My question is why do so many text books claim nuetral charge when no model of the atom geometrically predicts this if electron and proton have the same charge?