Torah and Science

Forgive my ignorance, but did Maimonides have anything to rely on? Wasn't there a definitive scientific tradition?

I didn't understand the question.

Is Maimonides' belief that scientific facts cannot be ascertained from the Torah his own? Is it according to the Mishnah, "and not the act of Genesis in the years" - perhaps there are scientific descriptions that must be studied carefully with a qualified rabbi - because he knows the scientific interpretation passed down in tradition? Or perhaps in the Mishnah there are no "pretensions" to scientific interpretation, but only a divine interpretation?
In other words: How do I know that Maimonides' belief was not embarrassed by the incompatibility between science and the Torah, and therefore he was "forced" to believe that scientific facts cannot be ascertained from the Torah, even though it is a true belief?!

This is not Maimonides' opinion. He only writes that if there is a scientific or philosophical finding that contradicts what is written in the Torah, the parasha must be given a creative interpretation to fit it there. I am the one who concluded from this that according to this there is almost no point in learning scientific or philosophical information from the Torah: if it is renewed, you will not accept it, and if it is generally acceptable to you, then what have you learned from the Torah?
It is clear that his words were spoken about situations of contradiction between what is written in the Torah and scientific or philosophical findings. What is the question about the embarrassment, etc.?

First of all, thank you Rabbi for the answers and for your patience. You should know that my questions are genuine and not meant to upset you, but rather my goal is to clarify. To the question -
According to the Rambel, does the creative, adapted interpretation have to be from the Torah commentators (who do not come from their own hearts but from the sages, etc.)? Or is it also a personal opinion when there is no suitable interpretation?

If the interpretations are from the sages, etc., then indeed what is written in the Torah is not literally, but there are interpreters who explain the verses to the point of "simple" and scientific understanding. And if there is no such suitable interpretation, then "there is confusion" and one must invent an interpretation?

Everything is fine.
Why only interpretations of Torah commentators? How did they themselves interpret? Did they look at the previous Torah commentators? So how were new interpretations created? It is clear that everyone is supposed to interpret according to their understanding, and one can of course use the interpreters.