[Bored chemist]

Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards

Can you breathe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore if there is a gas in a cloud, that gas should expand outwards and not inwards.

The Sun is made of gas, but it has a practically constant size because it's in a state of equilibrium. It isn't expanding outward. So your claim is observably incorrect.

Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?
How can you compare between the two structures?

Let me ask you the following:
Do you agree that the same gas could that formed the Sun had also formed the rocky planets and moons?
Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?

If you agree with the above,
1. How could it be that the light molecular as Helium and Hydrogen had collapsed inwards and formed the Sun at the center of the gas cloud, while the heavier rocky matter including Iron and silicon left outwards in order to be used for the rocky planets?
2. How binary/triple star system (or more that that) could be formed while the matter collapsed inwards to the center?  Why not just one single star per gas cloud?
3. If the heavy matter in our universe had been formed by a supernova of a death star, how that matter that was ejected outwards at almost the speed of light could set any sort of high dense gas cloud?
4. Our scientists claim that at the maximum, a supernova could create Iron (atomicnumber - 26).
https://hobart.k12.in.us/ksms/PeriodicTable/atomicnumber.htm
So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?

[Bored chemist]

Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?
How can you compare between the two structures?

Not much.
Well, one is a cloud of gas, and so is the other.

Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?

Plainly no.
The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen.
Why did you even ask that?

So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?

Ash from previous supernovae.

[Kryptid]

I still don't see any explanation as to how one gas cloud can come to orbit another if you disallow gravitational capture.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33
Don't you agree that there is still a difference between gas cloud to star (Sun)?
How can you compare between the two structures?

Not much.
Well, one is a cloud of gas, and so is the other.

Sorry
There is big difference between gas cloud to star.

Let's use the G1 and G2 as an example:
https://www.cnet.com/news/strange-unknown-objects-found-orbiting-milky-ways-black-hole/
"These objects look like gas and behave like stars," said Andrea Ghez, an astronomer at UCLA and co-author of the new study, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday."
So, what does it mean: "These objects look like gas and behave like stars?"
Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?
As you would surly reject my explanation, why don't you ask Mr Andrea Ghez for more explanation about the real differences?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33
Hence, do you confirm that the same matter that was used to form the Sun, also used to form the rocky planets?

Plainly no.
The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen.
Why did you even ask that?

Are you sure about it?
So, based on your explanation, The sun had been created from a Hydrogen/helium gas cloud, which must be different from the rocky cloud that formed the planets and moons.
We also know that the matter in the Sun had not been created directly from the early hydrogen after the Big bang.
So, the gas cloud that formed the Sun had got its matter from early formed star that lost its life by supernova.
However, you claim that the gas cloud that had formed the rocky planets must be "Ash from previous supernovae". So one supernova is not good enough for the rocky planets:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:13:33
So, how can we explain the source of all the heavier matter (above that atomicnumber as copper, gold, platinum...) in our planet?

Ash from previous supernovae.

Therefore, the Rocky gas cloud that formed the planets gets it matter from at least one more cycle of supernova:
Do you really believe in that imagination?
Did you had the chance to read an article about the "Formation and evolution of the Solar System"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed."
In this article they clearly discuss about the same giant molecular cloud that form the Sun and all planets and moons.
However, I agree with you that this could set a severe contradiction as you have stated:
"The Sun is almost entirely hydrogen, the Earth is largely things like iron and oxygen"
That shows that you and our scientists - all of you, don't have a basic clue how it really works!

I still don't see any explanation as to how one gas cloud can come to orbit another if you disallow gravitational capture.

The explanation is just in front of our eyes.
It is called G1, G2 and all the other G gas clouds:
https://www.cnet.com/news/strange-unknown-objects-found-orbiting-milky-ways-black-hole/
"The nature of these so-called "G sources" is controversial. Some astronomers believe they're gas clouds, others contend they look more like strange stars shrouded in dust. In a new study, astronomers reveal they have detected four more of these mysterious objects which look very similar to G1 and G2 -- and suggest they are members of a new class of cosmic phenomena."
So, we see there a clear indication for star formation in those gas clouds.
That process could work as those gas clouds orbit a very massive object that is called - Sagittarius A*
"At the heart of the Milky Way, there's a monster black hole with a mass 4 million times that of the sun, Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). In the last decade, scientists looking in the black hole's cosmic neighborhood saw two peculiar objects, which seemed to be orbiting the black hole. They were dubbed G1 and G2. "
Our scientist assume that those gas cloud is used as a snack for the SMBH. However, this is a fatal error:
"In 2014, astronomers observing G2 watched on as it barreled directly towards Sgr A*. Astronomers predicted G2 was a gas cloud and so it would offer the massive black hole a snack -- as it approached it would be ripped apart and gas would fall into the black hole. But... that's not what happened. G2 got perilously close to Sgr A* and survived, prompting a rethink about what it could be. "
The SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from that gas cloud.
Our scientists don't understand that the molecular stream that had been ejected from the accretion disc is the "sh1t" of the SMBH. It already eat one particle for any one that it ejects into the accretion disc. No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).
The Molecular gas cloud in G1/G2 includes all the variety of atomicnumber atoms (as Hydrogen, gold..) and any Molecular as water that we wish.
So, we don't really need any sort of supernova to create higher atomicnumber. The accretion disc can do it much better than any supernova.
So, how it really works?
1. Each G gas cloud orbit at different inclinations
"I think the gas streamer hypothesis worked well when we just had G1 and G2, but with 6 objects, orbiting at very different inclinations, this hypothesis is harder to apply," said Anna Ciurlo, an astronomer at UCLA and first author on the new study."
2. The gas cloud comes very close to the SMBH:
"In 2014, astronomers observing G2 watched on as it barreled directly towards Sgr A*."
That sets severe pressure to compress the gas cloud and starts the activity of "gravitational collapse" and "runway accretion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"In triggered star formation, one of several events might occur to compress a molecular cloud and initiate its gravitational collapse."

3. However, the main activity takes place at the middle region of the gas cloud.
"During the collapse, the density of the cloud increases towards the center and thus the middle region becomes optically opaque first. This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g / cm3. A core region, called the First Hydrostatic Core, forms where the collapse is essentially halted. It continues to increase in temperature as determined by the virial theorem. The gas falling toward this opaque region collides with it and creates shock waves that further heat the core.[29]"
In this middle region all/most of the star formation activity takes place!!!
So, the matter is concentrated and compressed at that middle region of the gas cloud and form simultaneously several stars system including all the needed planets and moons to each system from the same matter.
That explains the Binary/Multi star system in our galaxy.
So, at the center of the Gas cloud there is almost no activity and almost no matter. However, all the new created stars orbits around that center while that center orbits around the SMBH. This is a key element in the Star motions in the galaxy.

4. How those stars could be formed from the compressed matter?
"As it collapses, a molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces in a hierarchical manner, until the fragments reach stellar mass. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas radiates away the energy gained by the release of gravitational potential energy. As the density increases, the fragments become opaque and are thus less efficient at radiating away their energy. This raises the temperature of the cloud and inhibits further fragmentation. The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
However, that activity can't work under a constant pursue or accretion. as it is stated:
"When the surrounding gas and dust envelope disperses and accretion process stops, the star is considered a pre-main-sequence star (PMS star)."
So, the movement of the gas cloud around the SMBH give it the compress/decompress that is needed for the forming activity.
Therefore, as the G cloud comes very close to the SMBH is also moves far away from it:
"The orbital periods of the new objects range between 170 years and 1,600 years."
Therefore, we get the difference is the accretions/ compressions that is vital for the following activity:
"When the core temperature reaches about 2000 K, the thermal energy dissociates the H2 molecules.[29] This is followed by the ionization of the hydrogen and helium atoms. These processes absorb the energy of the contraction, allowing it to continue on timescales comparable to the period of collapse at free fall velocities.[30] After the density of infalling material has reached about 10−8 g / cm3, that material is sufficiently transparent to allow energy radiated by the protostar to escape. The combination of convection within the protostar and radiation from its exterior allow the star to contract further.[29] This continues until the gas is hot enough for the internal pressure to support the protostar against further gravitational collapse—a state called hydrostatic equilibrium. When this accretion phase is nearly complete, the resulting object is known as a protostar.[4]"

5. Planets and moons
At the end of this forming activity process we get a full solar system.
So, the whole solar system had been created at the same moment and from the same matter (in that gas cloud)
Therefore, The Earth and its Moon were a hot gas objects at their first day.
98% from their mass was based on light atoms as hydrogen and Helium.
Therefore, they were very massive at that time and therefore, the gravity force between the earth moon was much stronger than the Sun Moon. Therefore, the moon orbits around the earth instead directly around the Sun.
However, due to their low gravity force, they have lost most of those light atoms to space.
We are lucky that the earth could maintain its water. We know that Mars had lost most of its water.

[Kryptid]

So, what does it mean: "These objects look like gas and behave like stars?"

One is a subset of the other. Stars are gas, but not all gas is stars. If he's contrasting the two, then obviously he's talking about gas clouds that aren't stars. The Sun is a spherical gas cloud bound by its own gravity.

The SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from that gas cloud.

No one is going to eat its own "sh1t"

You need to stop anthropomorphizing things that aren't alive.

So, the matter is concentrated and compressed at that middle region of the gas cloud and form simultaneously several stars system including all the needed planets and moons to each system from the same matter.

That's your explanation for how they formed, but it doesn't explain how those moons came to orbit those planets. Remember, you don't allow for gravitational capture.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You need to stop anthropomorphizing things that aren't alive.

The SMBH has the ability to create new particles pair, eat one and eject one.
It doesn't need any help from any other object to increase its mass and also to create stars and BH.
Our scientists called it "monster"
Therefore, I consider it as a "living object" or "monster" as you wish.

That's your explanation for how they formed, but it doesn't explain how those moons came to orbit those planets. Remember, you don't allow for gravitational capture.

Yes it is
As I have stated, the forming activity takes place at the middle region of the gas cloud.
At the first stage millions of stellar embryos have been created:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"As it collapses, a molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces in a hierarchical manner, until the fragments reach stellar mass. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas radiates away the energy gained by the release of gravitational potential energy. As the density increases, the fragments become opaque and are thus less efficient at radiating away their energy. This raises the temperature of the cloud and inhibits further fragmentation. The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
Each one of those stellar embryos could potentially become a small planet or moon.
Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.
Each time that the gas cloud gets closer to the SMBH they get the requested momentum/compress that forces them to merge with each other. Over time, most of them will merge and form the main objects. However, as we all know - there is no 100% efficiency in the nature.  Therefore, not all the stellar embryos would be merged with the main objects
Some of them would continue to orbit around each other while their common mass point would orbit around the main object.
At the end of the forming activity process, we would call the main objects - Stars. The massive stellar embryos would be called planets and those relatively small stellar embryos that orbits around the planets (massive stellar embryos) would be called moons.

[Bored chemist]

Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?

No.
It just sloppy writing .
It should say "like most gas".

If you don't think they are gases then you are stuck with solids or liquids as your only options- too hot for  a B-E condensate and plasmas are a sub-set of gases.

[Bored chemist]

No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).

Ignoring the unscientific anthropomorphisation, rabbits do exactly that. Why shouldn't monster black holes?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Don't you agree that this statement by itself shows that there must be a difference between the two?

No.
It just sloppy writing .
It should say "like most gas".

If you don't think they are gases then you are stuck with solids or liquids as your only options- too hot for  a B-E condensate and plasmas are a sub-set of gases.

In the article about Gas cloud it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
"The fragments now condense into rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos.[24]"
So, do you accept the idea that in the G gas cloud there are "rotating spheres of gas that serve as stellar embryos"?
As you insist that a star acts as a gas cloud, do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:49
No one is going to eat its own "sh1t" (even if we called it a monster' SMBH).

Ignoring the unscientific anthropomorphisation, rabbits do exactly that. Why shouldn't monster black holes?

Monster black holes don't eat their sh1t as nothing could penetrate (from outside) the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.
That magnetic field boosts any nearby molecular to its poles at almost 0.8 c.
Therefore, we clearly see those jet molecular streams at up to 27,000 Ly above/below the galactic disc of the SMBH.
So, if any atom from the nearby gas cloud would dare to come too close to the SMBH, than before it could finish to say "rabbit" it would be ejected at 0.8c into that molecular jet stream above/below the galactic disc.
Hence, the SMBH ONLY eats one particle from the new created pair.
It might not sound as a real food for this mighty monster.
However, we see a similar phenomenon also in our planet.
The biggest animal in our planet - the Whale form the North Sea, eats micro organism – (but many of them).
So, if the whale could be so big by eating only those micro organisms, why the SMBH can't also be so big by only eating the smallest new created particles (but also many of them)?

However, there is key advantage for the SMBH monster over the whale.
It acts as the Ultimate chef in the universe as it creates its own food without any need for any product from outside .
It doesn't need to find a sea or space with rich micro organism.
As long as it keeps its mighty electromagnetic filed, new particles would be popped up to be eaten.
Hence, wherever it goes, the food is always available for him.

[Bored chemist]

Monster black holes don't eat their sh1t as nothing could penetrate (from outside) the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.

Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?
Also, if the field stopped things entering then it would also stop things leaving.

You must be starting to realise that just making up stuff won't work here.

[Kryptid]

It doesn't need any help from any other object to increase its mass

Which, of course, violates conservation of mass because mass cannot be created...

Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.

Yes, but how did they come to orbit each other?

do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?

The Sun is a rotating sphere of gas...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:03:56
do we see any rotating spheres of gas in the Sun?

The Sun is a rotating sphere of gas...

Sure. The whole Sun acts as a single rotating sphere of gas. So only one rotating sphere of gas could exists at the Sun..
However, In a Gas cloud there could be millions of rotating spheres of gas.
That is the biggest difference.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:04:09
Those stellar embryos orbits around each other.

Yes, but how did they come to orbit each other?

Due to the idea that all/most of them orbit at the middle region of the Gas could and due to the ultra high momentum that they get as the gas approach the SMBH.

if the field stopped things entering then it would also stop things leaving.

You are absolutely correct.
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
Any particle/molecular that is ejected from the accretion disc is considered as coming from inside. Any molecular that comes from a nearby gas cloud is considered as coming from outside.
They would face the same destiny.
The Magnetic field would grab all of them (from any direction) and boosts them high above its poles.
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream and in the same token nothing would cross that magnetic field from outside as it also must be boosted into that molecular jet stream.
One law for all particles/molecular from any direction.

[Bored chemist]

You are absolutely correct.
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).
Any particle/molecular that is ejected from the accretion disc is considered as coming from inside. Any molecular that comes from a nearby gas cloud is considered as coming from outside.
They would face the same destiny.
The Magnetic field would grab all of them (from any direction) and boosts them high above its poles.
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream and in the same token nothing would cross that magnetic field from outside as it also must be boosted into that molecular jet stream.
One law for all particles/molecular from any direction.

You missed the important bit.

Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?

[Kryptid]

That is the biggest difference.

Only because of the size difference. Your statement that a gas cloud must expand still ignores the fact that the Sun is made of gas and isn't expanding.

Due to the idea that all/most of them orbit at the middle region of the Gas could and due to the ultra high momentum that they get as the gas approach the SMBH.

You realize that this is like me asking, "How do they orbit?" and you answering with "because they orbit", don't you? It's not at all helpful. You're not telling me how they got from a state of not orbiting to a state of orbiting.

The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).

How is that supposed to stop neutrons or neutrinos?

Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream

If that was true, then there shouldn't be an accretion disk at all. All of the particles created by the black hole should be shot off in the form of polar jets.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:06:32
Therefore, nothing would go outside without first boosted into that molecular jet stream

If that was true, then there shouldn't be an accretion disk at all. All of the particles created by the black hole should be shot off in the form of polar jets.

Thanks for this excellent message.
I also asked myself the same question.
The answer is based on balance between the forces.
If we could monitor the accretion disc we should find that it is actually a ring.
In the inner most radius of that ring, we should find only particles that had been ejected outwards from the SMBH.
Those particles should orbit almost at the speed of light.
Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius
However, as they move outwards, they are transformed into real atoms and molecular, their velocity is decreasing and also the SMBH' gravity force is decreasing due to longer radius.
At the outer most ring, the orbital velocioty is minimal (0.3c), the radius is maximal and the SMBH' gravity force is minimal.
At that stage, the magnetic field should be strong enough to hold all of those new created atoms, molecular and left over particles (including Hydrogen and Helium, water and even neutrons or neutrinos)  and push them all upwards/downwards in the direction of the poles at almost 0.8c till a distance of 27,000 above/below the SMBH' poles.
That shows the mighty power of the SMBH' magnetic field.

Actually, without the lifting power of the magnetic field, those molecular/particles in the accretion disc should continue to orbit at much longer radius while they decrease their orbital velocity.
We clearly see moons that orbit at about 1Km/s around their planets. So how could it be that the plasma in the accretion disc can't orbit at 0.1c or 0.001c at longer radius?
Therefore, the maximal radius of the accretion disc shows us the breaking point where the magnetic lifting force is stronger than the bonding gravity force.
We clearly see them all in the Molecular jet stream.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today.  (Image by David A. Aguilar)

Our scientists don't understand that this jet stream is due to the SMBH' magnetic filed.
Therefore, they claim: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."
So, let me tell them: It is like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused as it is due to magnetic field!!!

At least they confirm that: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center". As the plasma is only located at the accretion disc, than this statement is Ok with me.

They also estimate that in the molecular jet stream/cloud there is about 10,000 sum mass:
""Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required."
So, as 98% of the Sun is made out of Hydrogen and Helium, and as they even call it molecular jet/cloud, it is quite clear that the hydrogen and helium are surly there.
So, the SMBH' electromagnetic force doesn't need our confirmation to grab those light atoms and particles:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:06:32
The magnetic field grab any particle/molecular from any direction (inwards or outwards).

How is that supposed to stop neutrons or neutrinos?

Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?

It does it with or without our permission.
Unless, we can prove that there are no hydrogen, helium, neutrons or neutrinos in that molecular jet stream/cloud at the poles above/below the galactic disc.

[Bored chemist]

Are you actually an idiot?
Do you think that iron needs our permission to stick to a magnet?

neither hydrogen nor helium is affected by a magnetic field.
So, try giving a sensible answer to this

You missed the important bit.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:20:23
Why would a magnetic field stop hydrogen or helium- the two commonest elements in the Universe?

[Kryptid]

Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius

So now you've changed your mind about the magnetic field being able to stop anything. Now you say that particles that are moving quickly enough can get past the magnetic field.

It does it with or without our permission.

Do you even know what a magnetic field does?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, the SMBH' magnetic field can't grab those particles that orbit at that ultra velocity and under the mighty SMBH' gravity force that exists at that short radius

So now you've changed your mind about the magnetic field being able to stop anything. Now you say that particles that are moving quickly enough can get past the magnetic field.

No.
I claim that it is due to balance between Gravity force to Magnetic force and not between the orbital velocity to the pull up velocity.
The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.
At some point (let's call it - the "breaking point radius") the magnetic force is strong enough to overcome the gravity force and pull the particles (that had been transformed by now to molecular) upwards/downwards to the magnetic poles.
Therefore it is stated in the article:
https://insider.si.edu/2012/05/ghostly-gamma-ray-beams-blast-from-milky-ways-center/
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center"

Do you even know what a magnetic field does?

Don't you agree that the following molecular jet straem/beam is due to Magnetic field?
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
If no:
What kind of force could set those two beams?
"The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA’s Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane."
What kind of force could squirte out the plasma from the galactic center/accretion disc?
What kind of force can boost that plasma/molecular upwards/downwards at 0.8c in the direction of the magnetic Poles?
What kind of force works "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
"The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused."

Don't you finely agree that the magnetic force is the ONLY force that can do so?
Don't you also agree that this molecular jet beam/cloud is full with Hydrogen?
So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?
Why the maximal radius of the plasma at the accretion disc/ring is the "breaking point radius"?
Why it can't extend much longer than that?

[Kryptid]

The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.

So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 2³ = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 2² = 4 times less force than before.

This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:

(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.

Don't you also agree that this molecular jet beam/cloud is full with Hydrogen?

I was talking about neutrons and neutrinos, but hydrogen and helium clouds that aren't hot enough to be ionized shouldn't have any problems passing through that magnetic field.