If your assessment is accurate, disparaging comments are not, by design, going to encourage him to seek answers to his curiosity from others. We learn to by asking questions, but the types of answers we receive decides whether we risk asking more questions. Be kind with your answers, and in general.

I actually found it kind of humorous but thanks for speaking up Lucifer. I kind of took the easy button on this one but since you have established yourself as an expert, I'm game to hear more. Would you elaborate evidentialist? Please be as detailed as possible. Same to any others. I have a ravenous appetite for learning.

@beenthere -- The structure of the atom is well described in several places readily accessible on the Internet. Here are a few for starters:

First, a good descriptive piece is: [scienceclarified.com]

Here is an excerpt from that article that in itself indicates why the Solar System model is not correct:

"The model of electron behavior accepted today depicts the electrons as forming a cloud around the nucleus—almost exactly the opposite of what physicists believed a century ago. The use of the term "cloud" may perhaps be a bit misleading, implying as it does something that simply hovers. In fact, the electron, under normal circumstances, is constantly moving. The paths of its movement around the nucleus are nothing like that of a planet's orbit, except inasmuch as both models describe a relatively small object moving around a relatively large one.

"The furthest edges of the electron's movement define the outer perimeters of the atom. Rather than being a hard-shelled little nugget of matter, an atom—to restate the metaphor mentioned above—is a cloud of electrons surrounding a nucleus. Its perimeters are thus not sharply delineated, just as there is no distinct barrier between Earth's atmosphere and space itself. Just as the air gets thinner the higher one goes, so it is with an atom: the further a point is from the nucleus, the less the likelihood that an electron will pass that point on a given orbital path."

If, after reading this article, there are further questions, I suggest: [chem.libretexts.org]

And this one provides an excellent panorama of atomic study (there are 9 pages in all): [atomicarchive.com]

No, it's not.

Are proton, neutron and electron relative distances a fixed amount?

@beenthere from nucleus to the first electron, yes, in a way. For the simplest atom, Hydrogen, the distance is fixed. But, the distance is relative because the more protons and neutrons the nucleus has (i.e. the heavier, and therefore more complex, the element) the farther from the nucleus the electrons can be. But, also relatively, on the macro scale, there isn't much difference in size between individual atoms, despite their complexity. On the atomic scale, however, the difference would be equivalent to billions of miles of distance. I was using the Hydrogen atom as the model for my comment. But consider this... We once, before the invention of more powerful telescopes, regularly mistook whole galaxies for singles stars in the sky... But now we see the trillions of stars that combine to form that single light... All distances are relative, but some are not compressible beyond a certain point, such as with the simplest of atoms, Hydrogen.