You're repeating a classic human error.
1. Hmm, there seems to be a phenomenon here. Let's call it X.
2. Hmm, I think I must be caused by Y.
3. Ah, here's some proof that Y is not the cause of X.
4. X DOESN'T EXIST!
I do not understand the appeal of the argument, it's completely illogical, but it's very popular. But, what you proved is that your
old conception of matter is wrong. You have not proved that there is no such thing as matter. The rational answer is to update your understanding of X and move on, not get stuck on your first thought and never move on ever again.
Still, you are in good company. This is a staggeringly common logic failure in the philosophical arena.
What I call matter does exist, to within the limits of our observation... you see, I've updated my understanding in the light of the evidence. So all the arguments you have marshaled against the old definition don't affect me at all, and trying to convince me that I really mean some other definition so that you can salvage your arguments is a waste of time. I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them.
Still, you are in good company. This is a staggeringly common logic failure in the philosophical arena.
What I call matter does exist, to within the limits of our observation... you see, I've updated my understanding in the light of the evidence. So all the arguments you have marshaled against the old definition don't affect me at all, and trying to convince me that I really mean some other definition so that you can salvage your arguments is a waste of time. I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them.