Matter is any object that has Mass and Volume exist in Solid , Liquid, Gas .
With better English (matter is a kind of object?) this could be acceptable as a nineteenth century-style classical physics definition, or maybe in an elementary school book. The states of matter are not essential to the definition, though.
Again, poor English aside (volume a measurement of shape?), this is an attempt to display the density formula, as it might be reasonable in a handbook. But it is unacceptable to wrap it in a general definition of matter, specially when the author speaks about "Density of Matter" as it was an universal property as fundamental as, say, mass.
So this is a chemistry handbook too? Not that it is an unreasonable idea (after all, there is a respected and widely popular Handbook of Chemistry and Physics), but it would be nice to be warned of that beforehand.
Nonsense. Without bothering you with the details, chemical elements are an abstraction for different types of atoms. At the very least, matter is made of atoms (which are themselves made of protons, electrons, etc.) not of elements, nor can be elements "made up" by atoms. Furthermore, saying that atoms are "the smallest component of material which still have material's property" disregards many things, including the existence of molecules such as the "H2O" the author tried to represent.
Experiments of Electricity show that Atom can be divided into sub atomic particles that carry electric charge called Charged Particles .
Neutrons do not carry charge, though...
That disregards, for instance, positrons, which are positive "charged particles" like protons (but which aren't directly part of atomic structure).
Possibly the first non-objectionable thing in this module.
Mentioning chemical reactions and valency electrons in this context is totally spurious.
Without even discussing whether it is appropriate to discuss historical models of the atom in a handbook, this paragraph is a gross misinterpretation of energy levels in an atom: when the electrons "travel inward" they obviously aren't going from "Low Energy" to "High Energy" - otherwise how could energy be released? The author probably got confused because atomic level energies usually are given taking as referential (zero value) the energy at an infinite distance from the atomic nucleus, and so the energies of the levels are negative and therefore "grow" in absolute value as they get lower. Again, a gross mistake.