[laumars]

No, a touch over 100 years ago Einstein came up with a new set of equations that more precisely describes the movement of objects. Newtonian physics is still valid and still taught at schools since it adequately explains the movement of objects at an approximate level that is good enough for most people most of the time. But when dealing with equations at an astronomical scale, Newtonian physics start to break down.

Likewise quantum mechanics doesn’t replace General Relativity. It compliments it.

[scandox]

Complements it

[js8]

I think you misunderstand. The work that Einstein did on quantum mechanics was indeed "complimentary", i.e. provided for free as a courtesy. (Although it could be argued he actually got paid for it later with Nobel prize.)

[chrisweekly]

IMHO that interpretation is implausible. "... [theory] doesn't replace, rather [[its creator] provided it for free]"? makes no sense.

It doesn't replace, rather complements it.

Occam's razor AND semantics.

Edit: maybe you were joking? in which case sorry (it missed the mark)

[cecilpl2]

Pretty sure it was a joke.

[hoseja]

Very affective explanation.