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!

No. My points were simply:

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.