ef:"hehe. so as you can see this is just a theory. could anyone please discredit it with links to reference material..."
Finchbeak is right, what you wrote does not make any sense. And BTW, puttig together two ideas does not always a theory make. Especially when one of the ideas is flawed in its understanding.
You want some refs attesting your reasoning is faulty. Try any college level physics book that deals with special relativity.
ef:"... as i thought the reason light couldn't travel any faster is because there was no more force being applied to the photo."
In special relativity, the main postulate is that nothing can travel faster than light in vacuum (in vacuum light travels at the fastest speed).
Why this is indeed the case, let's say that no observation of faster than light particles (tachyons) has ever been made. It should suffice for now.
ef:"...thus leading me to believe that, no matter what the mass of the object being moved, the only reason it couldn't become faster than light was because for it to do so it would need immense amounts of energy just to pass through normal space at that speed. (no mention of travelling through absolute void though)."
Actually, if you read the postulates of SR (special relativity) attentive, the vacuum is implicitly understood, besides being explicitly stated for light, exactly for the reason that in vacuum all other dissipation mechanisms are absent.
The rest of your explanation is correct. One of the reasons why no massive (i.e. having rest mass) particle can exceed the speed of light is because in order to attain the speed of light it would need infinite energy. Photons are a special case of what is called massless particles (i.e. no rest mass) and the explanation does not apply to them since they already travel at the speed of light (which if you think about, makes sense).
