Hmm lets see if I can dumb this down to layman level.
I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion, you haven't offered us the legendary motion compass you sort of suggested exists. Detect motion or not detect motion makes no difference you need to be able to distinguish one state from the other to get a zero reference.
Why, well you are equating energy
>> directly and only << to motion as I understand it and if you don't know where zero is then you can't equate two energies. Normal science resolves the reference in a very different way but lets ignore that for now because you have excluded that because of how you have defined energy and you don't believe science.
So if we can't work an common frame for your motion you can't equate energy between two sites. For example someone at the pole of earth is moving at a totally different rate to someone on the equator.
So lets turn this to a very American problem since you do love your guns. The bullet impact energy is due totally to it's energy of momentum and I think you agree with that.
So your theory says interesting things about the energy of a bullet for a gun fire at the pole and the equator. You are either going to have decide on a relative frame for energy or an absolute frame?
If you choose absolute space even our good mate Marosz recognizes the problem and suggests not only is it true but you can measure it. He kind of does a weird graphic most people don't get but it is the above problem he is expressing
Do you see why this would occur?
The bullet speed gets added to the velocity of the person shooting and so the absolute speed of the bullet on the equator is faster than then the person shooting at the pole viewed to some absolute space.
The other choice is a relative reference frame for energy which at least makes the energy of impact the same in both cases but at a cost. The cost is energy is relative so there is no zero except at a local reference to you.
The relative frame probably doesn't sound like a problem initially but to give you the layman version of the problem. Try spending your US dollars in some back street in China which doesn't have foreign exchange capabilities.
Science goes with the relative option but now we have to somehow equate energies. We need foreign currency exchange everywhere even the back blocks of China because energy is everywhere.
You can't solve the problem under your definition do you see why?
Hint: You only have motion to do it because look how you defined energy
>> as only motion << 
That is why your energy is only motion MAKES NO SENSE to me.
I am left with two choices in the end
1.) it's a very silly idea badly thought out
2.) What you call energy is not the same thing I call energy.
