the results of einsteins therm is OBSERVED and MEASURED in countless trials scientists made....
Pretty much, yeah. AFAIK all aspects of special relativity have been confirmed in macroscopic scale. Like the non-linear increase of momentum as function of velocity, time dilatation and the energy-mass equivalence Some aspects of general relativity. The one thing subject to debate is the assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is constant everywhere and always, but that assumption has firm roots in Maxwell's electrodynamics that simply say there can be no frozen electromagnetic wave motion, which implies that one can not move at the same velocity as a photon does, which implies that speed of light is constant to all observers and so on...
Some aspects of general relativity have not been confirmed by direct observation (graviation radiation hasn't been successfully detected - yet - and the part where mass forms singularities is debatable at best since by definition, things behind event horizon can't be observed by normal means) but most of the theory corresponds to the observed reality so well that the rest of the implications are plausible and can be considered probable. The most problematic thing about general relativity is, like Mika pointed out previously, the exact nature of space-time continuum and the way energy/mass interacts with it.*
What comes to quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics, they are the most accurate descriptions of matter and all the interactions save gravity, and they work to insane accuracy. The basics behind some quantum effects are subject to interpretation, though - there are two major schools on interpreting the statistical nature of quantum phenomena: The Copenhagen interpretation, and the multiverse interpretation.
The Copenhagen interpretation sees particles as wave forms that can interfere with themselves and define the probability of the particle being detected at any given location. In for example basic interference experiment, the single particle's waveform passes through both holes and forms an interference pattern on itself, and the detection of the particle becomes more probable on certain parts of the detector, resulting in interference pattern. Whenever a particle is observed at location XYZT, the waveform of the particle ceases to exist (or collapses) partially or entirely. In case of photons, entirely; in case of particles that aren't destroyed upon observation, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents the possibility of aquiring the knowledge of particles' location and momentum at arbitrary accuracy, so the particles' waveforms never collapse completely...
The multiverse interpretation (or many-worlds interpretation as it's known in Wikipedia) considers the interference (among other phenomena) to be caused by the particles interfering with their corresponding particles in parallel universes that happen ever so slightly differently. While it sounds slightly more outlandish at first impression, recent experiments seem to suggest that this interpretation is, in fact, the more accurate and probable (and explains more things somewhat better) than the Copenhagen interpretation...
However, the question of whether these models actually depict what happens in reality(ies) or just offer interpretations for the models can be considered irrelevant in physics.
*space-time continuum is rather interesting concept when you can visualize what happens when the geometry changes from euclidian to non-euclidian.
The terms that general relativity uses to calculate the effects of mass and energy to space time speak for themselves - energy tensor implies that energy causes some kind of tension to change the geometry of space-time. From this it can be deduced that space-time has a native, or "zero-tension" state to which the tension caused by mass and energy can be compared. Most likely, this would be the euclidian state of space-time - three straight lines of infinite length can be placed perpendicular to each other in euclidian space-time, and they stay perpendicular for their entire length. As far as time goes, it passes the fastest in euclidian state of space-time.
When tension is applied to space, pretty much similar things happen as you apply tension to a stretchy surface. In case of a surface, it's area increases due to stretching. In case of space and time... the volume increases and speed of time decreases realtive to non-euclidian space. Of course, that's the case of positive curvature caused by the tension from positive energy/mass. Negative energy would likely cause negative curvature... which, strangely enough, would also increase the volume of the space locally.
In layman's terms, the tension applied to space and time essentially stretches each space axis and time axis, which creates more space and time.
As a result, if you for example take 1x1x1 metres big box on euclidian space, it's volume is exactly one cubic metre. However, if you take the same box close to a heavy object, you can fit more than thousand litres of water into the box because the slightly stretched time and space add some volume to the insides of the box.
This leads to
extrelemy interesting questions such as
"how much volume is inside a black hole's event horizon?" and
"how long is the distance from event horizon's edge to the postulated singularity at the center point?"... and the answers are IMHO even more intersting. Personally, my intuition tells me that the answer to the latter question is rather simple - the distance is infinite. This can also be interpreted so that event horizons don't HAVE a center point... which, in turn, means that every point inside event horizon is equal in terms of being the center point. Which would kinda make singularities obsolete. If there's no center point, where would the matter accumulate into singularity? Where inside the horizon would the singularity be? As for the volume question... now that's a trickier one. Most likely finite, approaching some value depending on the total energy inside the horizon.
Also, as I told earlier, my intuition tells me that inertia is a direct result of the space-time's ability to stretch under tension, since tension implies that energy is needed and stored into changes of the space-time's state of geometry...
Also, my intuition is known to have been wrong.
