Why not

Nah. Wormholes aren't black holes. You can compare wormholes to adjoining black holes because they're basically two funnels that meets in the middle on the spacetime continuum (I've always wanted to say that), but the fundamental difference is that there is no infinite mass object causing infinite gravity in the middle of the funnel. This means that objects would not be sucked into the wormhole.

If there was infinite gravity inside the wormhole, as a black hole, things would be sucked into the wormhole and wouldn't be able to come out.
Now, gravity does attract, but the attraction force can be harvested into energy. In the OP example (OP original poster), the instant generation of potential energy by putting the object in the wormhole still creates energy.

First off, I don't think that we should be considering what happens inside the wormhole, since it literally exists outside of the plane of reality, but okay...max kinetic energy I get, but before it goes out the wormhole at the other end...let's consider two different possibilities.
1. Object exits wormhole retaining max kinetic energy. The little kinetic energy used in putting the object in the wormhole turns into infinite kinetic energy. Spontaneous energy generation.
2.Object exits wormhole with the same kinetic energy that was used when putting the object into wormhole (this is what I think will happen). Object gains potential energy in gravity that would exceed the minimal kinetic energy used in putting object in wormhole, object falls with greater energy, energy is harvested.
Either way, both of our arguments agree on the fact that wormholes cannot exist in the "put an object through the wormhole, comes out the other end" fashion, the one that is most generally accepted, or else conservation of energy would be violated. If we're going by infinite gravity inside the wormhole, it kinda defeats the purpose of a wormhole since you couldn't travel through it, just travel into it and kinda...die.

EDIT: Just read Bork's previous post. I have no idea how the objects travel through a wormhole but I'm guessing that it works sort of like phospholipids in a plasma membrane. I'm not too sure how to explain it without dropping dead out of boredom halfway through my post, so google it.

No a wormhole is a hypothetical phenomenon in the space time dimension. Both ends of a wormhole, i.e the one you go through and the one you exit, to land on a completely different point in the space time dimension, are blackholes. Now theoretically a blackhole has near infinite gravity, that the fastest lets say "object", i,e light, cannot exit a blackhole.

Now according to physics light travels the fastest, and there can be no object that travels faster than light. So inside a wormhole, even though you would need near speed of light to get out of the black hole at the other end (something like escape velocity), a beam of light passing alongside you in a wormhole will still be faster than you are. BUT, a light beam outside of the wormhole will still be slower than you. Meaning the wormhole is sort of a shortcut.

Now coming to energy, every body has a potential energy. The amount of potential energy an object has depends on gravity, and in this case a blackhole. So the potential energy that gets converted to kinetic energy will be the same. Thereby proving that energy only gets converted, and does not get created.

Um...so basically you're saying that there is an object of infinite mass in the center of the wormholes? This is the only way for the black hole theory to be true. Need to make sure because otherwise I write a response assuming the wrong thing.

A wormhole is a hypothetical phenomenon, that has 2 black holes as its entry and exit points. The tunnel is merely imaginary. Its like you go through a blackhole, and come back out through another one, only to find yourself in a different point in the space time dimension.

And yes, black holes are theoretically of incredible mass, maybe near infinite, and therefore near infinite gravity. Therefore any object entering it, will at first have infinite potential energy and as it gets closer to the black hole, that potential energy will get converted to kinetic energy and the velocity of the object will be near light speed.

Also potential energy of an object can only be measured relative to something. For example, the gravity of the moon is 1/6th of the earth. Therefore if you weighed 60 pounds on Earth, you would only weigh 10 pounds on the moon. Therefore if you hang above the surface of the moon, you would have a considerably less potential energy than if you hang over the surface of the earth. Same thing applies to black holes. If you are near a black hole, you will have almost infinite potential energy. That is why you "fall" to the earth at an accleration of 9.18m/s2 but you would accelerate a zillion times faster if you are near a black hole or were falling to it. Therefore in the end, energy will only be converted, regardless of magnitude, and never get created.

I'm not too sure how you would go into a black hole, have whatever it is entering the black hole get crushed by infinite gravity, and come back out again. Nothing can leave infinite gravity, so the object would not be able to exit the wormhole.

Again, I'm unsure of how the object would leave infinite gravity, because it can't, that's the point of infinite gravitational pull.

Lastly, the potential energy I am talking about is after the object leaves the wormhole on the other end. Let me explain this with an example. Because you haven't said anything about the energy when the object leaves the wormhole, I'm going to assume that it leaves with the same kinetic energy when it came in.
Assuming wormhole that transports objects through the space time continuum that retains energy of objects entering through it,
1. Put an object through the wormhole.
2. Object approaches light speed by infinite gravitational pull
3. Object leaves infinite gravitational pull...(?)
4. Object exits wormhole retaining same kinetic energy as when it entered the wormhole.
5. Object gains potential energy in gravitational pull that is greater than the kinetic energy used to put object through wormhole.
6. Gravity turns potential energy into kinetic energy, object falls, energy is created and harvested.
Sorry, but I still don't see how any one of these steps are logically wrong. I don't get step 3 because I don't think that there is infinite gravity at the heart of the wormhole. I honestly don't consider what happens inside the tunnel that exists out of reality. For one, it exists out of reality so laws wouldn't apply there. Also, unless it has something to do with how the object enters/exits the wormhole, it doesn't have an effect on the OP example.

A further example to prove my point: Say that you use a force to lift a ball up in the air, drop it, and then harvest the energy from the drop. This is balanced, since the force you used to give the ball potential energy in its height is equal to the energy the ball gained in kinetic energy when it dropped. However, in OP example, you are lifting the ball 2cm and harvesting the energy from a fall of 2km because of wormholes. This is the creation of energy, no?

Okay take this example.

This is how a wormhole can be depicted as I saw a scientist on Nat Geo explain a while earlier:

Take a piece of cloth and hold it from all four ends of it. Place a ball in the centre of the piece of cloth. What happens? The ball will create a dent. Right? Similarly according to Einsteins theory of general relativity, any mass in space, will "BEND" the space time dimension. Now, Fold the cloth into half, but leave a space between the top and the bottom layer. Now place the ball again on the top layer. What happens? There will be a sort of a funnel created. Now put an equivalent ball on the underside of the bottom layer (Consider gravity to work in reverse in this case). What will happen? The space between the 2 pieces of cloth where the balls are, will be 2 funnels touching each other. This is how wormholes are formed. In this case instead of a ball, you can imagine 2 black holes since they have near infinite mass and are powerful enough to bend the space time dimension so much, that they form a shortcut to an entirely new point in the space time dimension.

Now if you had to take the conventional route to travel from one ball to another, you would have to travel through the surface of the top layer, then negotiate the curve, and then traverse the bottom layer to get to the second ball. That would take you a certain amount of time. Say 1 year. But through a wormhole, you can do that instantly. But even though you travelled instantly, the time at point B where you landed, will still be 1 year later. Which means you have successfully travelled through time (of course this is relative to the time where you started). So the wormhole itself is not some sort of a physical tunnel, it is just a path created by two massive bodies in two different points in the space time dimension.

Now theoretically a black hole would just crush you, so yes, a black hole is of infinite mass. But there are various models of black holes proposed, one of which is the Kerr Black hole. The scientist proposed that if dying stars collapsed into a rotating ring of neutron stars, their centrifugal force would prevent them from turning into a super massive black hole (that could crush you). According to scientists, we might enter such a black hole and then fall back out through a white hole. A White hole is just like a black hole, but pushes everything away from it, probably into another dimension of space time, just like a black hole sucks everything in.

Now when it comes to energy, like I said, a pebble passing through a wormhole, will simply get its PE converted to KE. Then again what PE it has depends entirely on the mass of the object that manipulates it in space time.

:O
Ok.
I knew the first few paragraphs, but that black hole->white hole theory was new. That was cool...but does that mean that for the Kerr model is the only model that works in conjunction with wormholes? In other words, in order for wormholes to exist black holes must follow the Kerr model? I've honestly never heard of it before (well, never heard of a lot of stuff in physics before, not surprising). But ok, makes sense. In this model, with how much energy would objects exit the wormhole/white hole?

However, as for your brief rejection of the creation of energy I previously posted, I still don't agree with. The PE it has depends entirely on the mass of the object that manipulates it...so it's possible for this PE to be different from the PE that it began with.

See everything is just relative. Like I said the mass of an object is relative to the mass of the body it is associated with. This is why I quoted the moon where the gravitational pull is only 1/6th of the earth. The same object would weigh much more say on Jupiter. So the PE of an object, lets take a pebble for instance, entirely depends on the mass of the object that manipulates it, simply because the mass of the manipulating object defines the gravitational pull it has and consequently the mass of the pebble itself. You have to consider them seperately not relative to one another.

So if a 10 kilo object had a PE of X on Earth, the PE of the same body will be Y on say Jupiter. But you would have to consider that the mass of the body has changed significantly. It doesnt weigh 10 kilos any more. It probably weights 100 on the surface of Jupiter. Similarly near or in or on a black hole, the same body will probably weigh a zillion tonnes. Get my point? Therefore Energy hasn't got created, it is simply converted from one form to another.

Take a tennis ball and a grain of sand for example. The tennis ball also has a gravitational pull on the grain. Lets say the grain of sand weights 1 milli gram on earth. When it comes to the tennis ball, it might weigh, say 1 nano gram, since the mass of the tennis ball is significantly lesser than the earth itself. And therefore the PE of the grain of sand with respect to the tennis ball, will be different than with respect to the earth.

Coming to white holes, that is just another hypothesis to traverse 2 points in the space time dimension. The cloth, baseball example I explained with black holes is just another theory. You shouldnt think of them as physically getting into a black hole and exiting it. We DO NOT know for sure, if that is even possible.

What we do know according to Einsteins theory is that huge objects with huge masses bend the space time dimension. And sometimes these pressures put by these objects might "connect" forming a path to another point in the space time dimension. Consider a huge sheet of cloth again, and place different objects on it. Say a tennis ball, a baseball, and then lets say a 2 Kilogram weight on different parts of the sheet. What will happen? The weight of the 2 kg block, will be so much, that it will create the biggest dent, and all other objects will fall towards it. Black holes work something like that.

Now, Consider the sheet of cloth EXTREMELY big, say the surface area is like many km2. In that case, the heaviest object will still make the biggest dent, but all other objects will still continue to exist in balance. But the nearer an object gets to the heaviest object, it will get pulled into it, if you know what I mean. Black holes seem to be the heaviest, so they seem to be one way of traversing 2 points in space time. So objects do not physically enter or exit a black hole, the black hole merely serves as a way to connect two different points. Even if an object were to enter and travel through it, its energy levels would certainly be relative to the forces of the black hole acting upon it. And the energy thing I explained in my first and second para of this post.

tl;dr

Nah, jk, this is a placeholder, replying in the morning.