Erm...ok. So consider wormholes. Let's assume for a second that they exist.
Consider two wormholes, one in front of you, and another above the surface of a large planet.
If you put an object through the wormhole, this would require minimal energy. However, once through the wormhole, gravity would cause the object to fall. This energy could be harvested.
I haven't taken phys except for read some books here and there, but this would go against the law of the conservation of energy. This law is now broken, energy unbalance has been introduced into the system...so wormholes would tear apart our world, yes? And our world hasn't been torn apart yet so wormholes cannot exist.

Bash away.

EDIT: btw, I came up with this thought while playing portal.

Not really, no.

Energy can be created; what happens at the centre of a star is mass to energy conversion. The idea that energy imbalance would destroy the earth is completely unfounded, and to be honest, sounds like something out of a bad Hollywood film. Even if that would be the result, it does not mean that there are no wormholes anywhere, it just means that there are none within a certain distance of the Earth, or they are not aligned in such a way that infinite falling could be occur. Even if one was above the planet, objects falling out of it would not necessarily fall into the other one, as the Earth is constantly spinning on its axis, so said object would probably miss the other wormhole by a great distance.

Nah, the destroying earth thing was me being high. Pay that no attention.

Yes, mass to energy conversion is possible, but in my example it's nothing to energy conversion, which violates the law of conservation of energy. Well, technically it's less energy to more energy conversion. Which, after you subtract less energy, becomes nothing to energy conversion.

I'm just saying that wormholes make it possible to violate the law of conservation of energy. Which would mean that wormholes can't exist...or there would be an inbalance of energy in our system. The result of that I'm not sure of, but it would exist and it would do something...big

Conservation of energy= Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Mass:Energy conversion= Creation of energy.

It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another

ty wikipedia.

Mass:Energy conversion is "transformed from one state to another".

for one thing the earth is hardly a closed system
second the law of conservation of mass and energy as with most laws of physics tend to break down as you approach something like a wormhole

and the energy to fall back to earth come from potential kinetic energy which is energy stored in an object as its altitude increases so you suddenly teleport something very high you are also giving it very high kinetic energy which it then uses to fall

By system I more or less meant the universe.

Ok, laws break down as we approach wormholes, that was my thought too. But this idea of creation of energy would still create a huge unbalance. Not to mention that convervation of energy is one of the most fundamental/basic laws ever. The second part I just don't agree with. Kinetic energy is a transformation of energy. However, the kinetic energy in this case is spontaneous. The energy used to put the object in the wormhole is much less than the kinetic energy generated from gravity. You are transforming less energy into more energy. You are still introducing excess enegy, created energy into the system.
I think you have this confused. For example, consider a rollercoaster. As the rollercoaster goes up, it has potential energy, and when it goes down, it has kinetic energy. however in this case, dropping the object into the wormhole gives the object minimal kinetic energy, but when it comes out of the wormhole, it gains more kinetic energy spontaneously. The difference between this and, say, putting the object really high up and letting it fall is that the act of putting the object up in the air requires kinetic energy to give the object stores energy. In the case, you do not need to use the kinetic energy--the stored energy is generated once the object passes through the wormhole.

My theory is this: that for wormholes to exist without violating fundamental laws of physics, they must exist in pairs, both having the exact same environmental characteristics. Any fluctuation would result in a imbalance in the energy in the universe. I don't know what that will cause, but I really don't think that a system in which the amount of energy has stayed constant since...well, forever would deal well with a sudden influx of created energy.

EDIT: nvm, thought about this again, wouldnt work because environments change over the course of time. Unless the environments are dependent...but there wouldn't be exact...meh, I give up. Next poster?

well think of it this way a wormhole would most likely exist as either two sepreate holes is space connected by some sort of parallel tunnel like space or less likely as a single hole that simultaneously exists in two places at one time

in the first case i imagine the energy would have to from the "tunnel" some how pushing the object through it or it wouldn't wouldn't come out the other side at all

in the second case you would be putting the object at both locations so you used to small amount of energy to get it in the first place but relative to the object you have placed it at the second location and relatively you have given it the potential energy needed however this is my speculation only as i am not an expert on non-inertial frames of reference

but as i said above the first option is probably the more likely for the two scenarios

I didn't quite understand the topic that much cuz am sleepy, but here is what I have to say:

Wormholes are essentially a hypothetical feature in a space time dimension. Now essentially the wormhole can be considered as a tunnel the ends of which can be considered a black hole, serving as a path between 2 different points in the space time dimension.

Now Gravity does not cause objects to "fall". Gravity attracts. Secondly, the higher the mass of an object, the more attractive force or gravity it has. Since black holes are incredibly heavy their gravity would be a many zillion times over than the earth itself. So if you had to put an object through a wormhole, I dont think you would need any energy for it, the wormhole would just suck you or that object in.

Lastly, energy indeed cannot be created or destroyed, but only converted. What happens in the center of the sun is not mass to energy conversion, its chemical energy to heat and light energy conversion (at the simplest levels). Now if you would pull an object into a wormhole, I suspect you would be moving at the "speed of light" and therefore have 0 potential energy, and a max kinetic energy. So indeed, the laws of physics would still hold. In that the potential energy completely got converted to kinetic energy (well almost).

Now black holes are called black holes, because their gravity is SO high, that they even trap light. That is why they are "black", or atleast considered to be so. So now, in an ideal wormhole, there wouldn't be any edges, since theoretically it isnt possible to travel faster than the speed of light, and if light can get trapped in a black hole, then no object entering a wormhole will ever get out.

Scientists however propose, that wormholes might have some sort of a "drag" or an energy, that does not allow you to travel faster than the speed of light inside the tunnel, but the distance crossed by an object that passes through a wormhole, will actually be longer than the distance covered by a beam of light outside of a wormhole, if you get my point. But obviously the last 2 paras are digressing.

My only theory is that the laws of physics will always hold.

mfreak that makes sense but the entrances of wormholes aren't necessarily black holes although they might be we however in this discussion we are assuming that they aren't black holes