Ben Levi,
1.) The Rambam clearly writes in the beginning of the Moreh that he is writing it for anyone who struggles with the apparent contradictions between the science of his time and the Torah. He does not say anything that even seems to hint that he is writing the book for any other reason or in some sort of code….
2.)The Ramabam clearly says that Chazal based their science on the science of their times and not Mesorah. I provided the quote two comments ago
3.)Furthermore the Rambam makes it quite clear in the Moreh 2:25 that he did not reject the idea that the Universe is eternal (as Aristotle believed)because the Torah seems to say that it wasn’t around forever. He says
“We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation.” (here’s the Marah Makom again Moreh 2:25)
He goes on to say that the reason he rejected an eternal universe was because Aristotle failed to prove that the universe was eternal.
4.)Simply saying that anyone that argues with your position was speaking in “Sod” is not a good or even remotely logical argument and frankly seems a bit infantile.
5.)In either case if (and we are not discussing if this is the case) the Metzius has proven that modern scientists statements are the truth, then that itself would prove that the Rambam meant his statement literally-because it is literally true!
6.)Again, if the Metzius has proven the Rambam correct (that Chazal’s science was based on the science of their times and is not infallible) then it wouldn’t make a difference even if EVERY SINGLE Talmud Chachom that lived after him argued on him. This is a discussion about Metzius. If he was correct then he was correct, doesn’t matter who said or says otherwise.
In summation the argument always has to be about the proofs to Chazal’s science vs the proofs to the statements of modern scientists or you are missing the point.