>I mean, aren't gas giants just "failed" stars that never got big enough?

No one knows.

See, the article talks about how previous theories are no longer necessarily applicable - which means everything we've been assuming about this stuff now gets rechecked, because right there in front of us is proof that what we believed before... ain't so.

It disrupts the presumed accuracy of every model that has relied on the previous interpretation. All speculation that relied on the previous theories for validity is now suspect, and how much of a rewrite will need to happen is yet to be determined.

Which is a constant in all facets of science, just btw. Every discovery, from the coronal loop optical illusion theory to the actual diameter of Terra's atmosphere, to the true electromagnetic strength of Sol, even the existence of tectonic plates... are updates to what humans believed was completely true.

"Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow." - K, MIB

Some minds refuse to accept new data if it contradicts what they believed before. Other minds are eager to accept and integrate new concepts. Reckon we're all finding the happy balance between both guidances?

Unsolicited Advice: Don't worry about the emotional stability of internet randos - if they're adults, they know it's their job to regulate their own feelings. If they're children, they'll blame you whenever they're unhappy anyway.

Your zen should be far more precious than internet rando opinions. 🖖