I have several objections to this "theory." First of all, as you point out, most metals do not relinquish electrons unless the electromagnetic radiation is of sufficient frequency (small enough wavelength), typically ultraviolet (~10^-8 m). However, the cosmic background radiation tapers off sharply at wavelengths less than 10^-3 m. Moreover, the TOTAL intensity of the cosmic background is extremely small, often measured in nW/m^2 (nanowatts per meter squared). I would like to point out that the average lightbulb outputs about 100 Watts, which is 10^11 times more power than the background outputs per square meter--and I guarantee you your average lightbulb is unable to hold up 1 square meter of our planet. Granted, if everything was perfectly static, no work would be done. However, you yourself point out that the "discs" move, to account for the motion of the sun, etc.
Second of all, you propose that:
In order for this to work I have to take into account a piece of Round earth science; behind all background radiation is that of the big bang. This I propose is coming from the UA beneath us.
However, it has been measured (and proven beyond a doubt) that the cosmic microwave background is approximately isotropic, i.e. we see equal intensities from all directions in space. Why would it be isotropic from space, but directional underneath us? Furthermore, momentum has to be conserved in your theory. Therefore, if there is a directional source of radiation (photons have momentum), the "flat earth" would gain momentum from collisions with these photons, and move "upwards" away from your mysterious source of cosmic radiation.
Third of all, I am curious as to how your source of photons passes through the earth and hits the "metal" sun and moon. The vast majority of photons are reflected or absorbed by several centimeters of metal, and the intensity of electrons that pass through tapers off as a negative exponential. However, the earth is thousands of miles thick.
Fourth of all, for electrostatics, it holds that for every force there is an opposite and equal reaction. If the earth-sun-moon system were in a line (not rotating about each other), then the force on the earth by the sun and moon would be equal and opposite to the force of the sun and moon by the earth. However, the sun is known to be much more massive than the earth. Thus, it would hardly budge, whereas the earth would rapidly accelerate away from the sun. F=ma for the win?
In addition, you seem to accept that gravity exists from your first paragraph. However, the relative strength of gravity compared to an electromagnetic field is known. Thus, one can estimate the fraction of atoms/molecules that must be ionized for your theory to work. Simply put, we do not observe so many ionized molecules, nor such strong electric fields.
Lastly, the removed electrons would have to be ejected far, far away from the earth-sun system. If they remained nearby, the sun and earth would still be approximately neutral, as they are far away from each other (perhaps they could be modeled as two dipoles, which are infinitely far from each other.) In this case, there would be no force due to electrostatics.
I'm sure I could come up with hundreds of more reasons, based on even weaker knowledge of physics, that your theory is incorrect. I'd rather go get some food
