This all depends very much on the journal. It is not necessarily something that should make you "feel injured", since there's many journals that allow for the publication of theoretical calculations that are completely devoid of experimental support.
This specific wording that the editor used:
"The paper is better suited for a broad-topic journal focused on
hypothesis-driven research, without any evaluation of immediate impact"
makes it appear that the journal to which you submitted, prefers to publish papers that will have "immediate impact" rather than papers that generate a hypothesis to be tested later by experimentalists. Furthermore the beginning of the editor's message:
"With your manuscript, in absence of experimental data supporting the
theoretical predictions..."
indicates to me that this journal prefers to publish work that is experimentally supported.
Examples of journals in our field that are like this include JACS and Angewandte Chemie, the former being notorious for not publishing work in theoretical chemistry without experimental support. However "International Journal of Quantum Chemistry" and THEOCHEM do publish a lot of papers that are purely theoretical (however you have not told us which journal you're discussing, so it's hard to tell whether or not you're a molecular matter modeler or a materials matter modeler: based on your other questions it looks like you work more in the solid-state side of things, meaning that you'd be looking more at physics journals than chemistry journals, so "Physica Status Solidi B" might be a journal for you to consider).
"My question is whether the theoretical data are just something that
must follow the experimental data. Are predicted data meaningless
without experimental data?"
It absolutely does not have to follow experimental data, and it is absolutely not "meaningless" without experimental data, however a trap that a lot of middle-scale academics fall into is that they think that because they solved a challenging problem that involved a lot of work, it should be publishable in a good journal. Unfortunately there's millions of challenging problems that we can get students to solve, which will be of very little interest to other people, so if a journal wants to maintain its reputation as one of the "most cited" or "most viewed" journals in the field, it often has to choose only the most "impactful" or "widely interesting" papers to publish. Now especially in our field of matter modeling, a lot of theoretical results are in fact meaningless from an experimental standpoint (not meaningless altogether, because by telling the reader what a certain method predicted under the conditions of the calculations, it still says something meaningful about the method) because you can get numbers with DFT (for example) that are just completely wrong. Many journals will not be interested in publishing such results, which is why journals catering specifically to theoretical work (e.g. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry or THEOCHEM) were created to let theoreticians have a place to put their results.
Finally I'll say that many editors get a large volume of papers each day, and it's not uncommon for them to give generic rejection letters that are made to look polite and personal but really are copied and pasted. If you see your question's edit history, you might notice that you made a lot of grammatical errors just in writing this question alone, and if your paper looked anything like that, the editor might (based on the writing quality alone) not have wanted to waste the time of the referees, since it's not always easy to find senior academics that are willing to volunteer their time towards reviewing a (poorly written) paper for free. So if you see lots of theoretical papers in that journal, without experimental support, consider that your paper just didn't meet the journal's quality standards.
I will also end with what are I wrote at the end of this answer:
"It usually does no harm to look at some of the papers in the most
recent issue of a journal, and even write to the editor an informal
inquiry about the suitability of the journal for your paper, before
formally submitting the paper, since this can save you the loss of
time (and energy and enthusiasm!) associated with having a paper
rejected."
By doing this you can see in advance whether or not the journal accepts papers without experimental support.
I would recommend next time also to tell us which journal you're discussing, and if you don't mind even showing us the paper we can help you a lot more than you might have originally thought.
