Non-carbon based life & water replacements could produce/support life elsewhere in our universe. Correct?

Question

Life forms like ours rely on water & oxygen to exist. Life elsewhere may rely on arsenic, chlorine, sulfur (reducing sulfur to hydrogen sulfur), nitrogen, & phosphorus. They have the properties of oxygen.

What about water? There's ammonia, hydrogen fluoride methanol, hydrogen sulfur, hydrogen chloride, and formamide, all could be used in place of water. All the above could produce and support life. They may not look like us, they may rely on one or more of the above in place of what we as humans, use! What do you think? Are there any others?

Answer 1

Probably not.

the key is chemical diversity (consider how complicated and rich carbon's chemistry is)

another key is oxygen's triplet ground state

other keys:  temperature, pressure, radiative intensity, radiative spectrum, and other similar environmental factors

sure, several billion years of a nice warm rich chemical soup might spawn the type of molecules that self replicate (rna analogue), but to guess what the idenity of the main players will be is laughable.

I think your question is a little bit confused (not confusing)

you are asking about non-carbon based life, and then ask about the oxidizing agents and solvents that might be possible.

you miss the point of "what is going to replace carbon"

that is one of the most important things.

sure, other oxidizing agents may be possible, but few elements have the type of chemical diversity that carbon has.

not only does carbon bond with itself in multiple bonding configurations, but it also bonds with OTHER elements in multiple bonding configurations.

the most common "replacement" is silicon.  the biggest problem with silicon is that the oxidation product, analogue of co2, is sand.

the other problem is that silicon hates to bond with itself.  you rarely see 3 silicon atoms bonded in a row, and certainly not pure silicon polymers

note that silicon crystals are not bonding in the strict covalent sense.  the bonding behavior is not "simple" like it is in carbon, and certainly not as diverse.

you also mention a bunch of solvents (HF and HCl?  only HF is liquid at "earth temps" and it is likely too nucleophilic to be of much concern).

you seem to miss the key points of water (of course h2s is an analogue, in fact it is a naturally occuring chemical).  inorganic, contains the main oxidizing agent used by life, is ionic, liquid, etc etc.

another key point with water is that it just happens to be the condensation product of many of the chemical reactions that are fundamental in nature (same with CO2).  

not only does water provide a solvent, but it also acts as a building block in biochemistry.

there are many reasons why the question is flawed, NOT the idea behind the question, but more of the way you have approached it.

Answer 2

there are RUBBER GIRLFRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 3

The consenses says that if there is water, there is a possibility of life. They pretty much have a fluorocarbon based substitute for blood plasma and the ability to carry oxygenated material from the lungs to the cells. All sorts of chemicals are available to mimic certain carbon based chemicals that are necessary to life. The religous zellots go a little nuts on this possibility that there is alternate life or that even earth is the only spot in the universe that life exists. The finding of traces of microbes and things that microbes leave behind in things like meteors and in 1+ mile deep coal deposits are ;making the scientists look a little more carefully at what they consider life. The existance of "prions" (snippets of virus-like partles) that should not be able to duplicate themself but do something is very disturbing in many circles.

Answer 4

"Non-carbon based life & water replacements could produce/support life elsewhere in our universe."

Not correct.  Pure, empty speculation, with ZERO evidence to support it.

Congratulations!  This is what passes for science these days!  You should do well in the field!