That‘s also a wrong simplification. It wasn’t an attack at all. When science reaches new limits and an old theory is confirmed valid even there, what‘s left is even less possibilities for some new theory to make a different prediction. Any new theory must be compatible with the old one in all these already checked places.
Right, so we just added another required predictive ability to the more precise theory that will likely eventually supplant Einstein's. I don't see why that is at odds with what I wrote - no matter the outcome of the experiment, a new theory will need to also predict its outcome. But since Einstein's theory also did, we don't currently need to replace it for that reason (we do for other reasons, such as unifying quantum mechanics and relativity).
It‘s not about “replacing”: in all the areas where it is already confirmed it doesn’t ever need to be replaced.
Wherever Newton’s formulas are good enough they are still used and are going to be used in future. It’s just about extending the limits. And in this case, again, Einstein’s formula are shown to be good enough.
Right, your point is that normally, new theories don't fully refute the existing ones - the existing ones turn out to be special cases of the new one - the old theories are not entirely wrong, but rather only right sometimes. Like how Newtonian physics work fine as long as things are not traveling very fast or are very heavy, at which point we need relativity. I fully agree with this. But being only right sometimes is still a falsification of the theory (as a complete theory to describe and predict all phenomena that it pertains to). My point is that nothing in my top level comment is at odds with this. Relativity has once again not been falsified. Newtonian physics have been falsified (in general - though they are contained as a special case within relativity). The body of evidence that a new theory needs to deal with in order to replace and subsume relativity has just been expanded even more - yay!
1) it was not "an attack" at all but an experiment that confirmed the theory's validity in the limits of the Universe previously unreachable to humans.
2) The "replacement" didn't happen before with Newton's formulas: under the limits under which it was known that Newton's formulas worked before Einstein's it is still known that Newton's formulas work. The basic formulas still being taught about special relativity are actually Lorentz transformations, decades older than Einstein's work and still actively used under the limits where they still work etc. There isn't any "refutation" there it's about having most of the Universe explainable by the formulas we use. The new discoveries aren't "replacements" but "filling the blanks" which remain, and one more area is now confirmed not to be a blank at all.
That‘s also a wrong simplification. It wasn’t an attack at all. When science reaches new limits and an old theory is confirmed valid even there, what‘s left is even less possibilities for some new theory to make a different prediction. Any new theory must be compatible with the old one in all these already checked places.