Fix formatting and mathematical expressions in index.html

Author: Gmac4247

index.html

@@ -3404,7 +3404,7 @@ <h3 style="margin:7px">The volume of a sphere is defined by comparing it to a cu
 <br>
 <section>
 <details>
-  <summary><h4 style="margin:7px">The " V = 4 / 3 × π × radius³ " formula is widely used for the volume of a sphere.</h4></summary>
+  <summary><h4 style="margin:7px">The " V = 4/3×π×radius³ " formula is widely used for the volume of a sphere.</h4></summary>
 <p style="margin:12px">It is a cornerstone of theoretical geometry. 
 <br>
 <br>
@@ -3414,18 +3414,18 @@ <h3 style="margin:7px">The volume of a sphere is defined by comparing it to a cu
 However, my work focuses on the actual volume of physical spheres as determined through direct measurement. 
 <br>
 <br>
-My calculations and experiments have consistently indicated a different relationship, expressed by the formula V = cubic value of ( √( 3.2 ) × radius ), which provides a more accurate result when dealing with real, physical entities. 
+My calculations and experiments have consistently indicated a different relationship, expressed by the V = (√(3.2)radius)³ formula, which provides a more accurate result when dealing with real, physical entities. 
 <br>
 This formula isn't based on abstract geometric ideals alone but on tangible experiments where I've measured the volume of real spheres. 
 <br>
 <br>
-These measurements have shown a systematic difference compared to the theoretical predictions based on the traditional formula, suggesting that the way we mathematically describe the volume of a sphere might need to be reconsidered when applied to physical objects. 
+These measurements have shown a systematic difference compared to the theoretical predictions based on the traditional "  V = 4/3×π×radius³ " formula, suggesting that the way we mathematically describe the volume of a sphere might need to be reconsidered when applied to physical objects. 
 <br>
 <br>
-The " 4 / 3 × π × radius³ " formula is a very rough underestimate. 
+The " 4/3×π×radius³ " formula is a very rough underestimate. 
 <br>
 <br>
-If you're trying to calculate the volume of a physical ball or sphere for a practical purpose – whether it's for a science experiment, engineering, or any other real-world application – my empirically derived V = cubic value of ( √( 3.2 ) × radius ) formula offers a result that aligns more closely with what you would measure in the lab.
+If you're trying to calculate the volume of a physical ball or sphere for a practical purpose – whether it's for a science experiment, engineering, or any other real-world application – my empirically derived V = (√(3.2)×radius)³ formula offers a result that aligns more closely with what you would measure in the lab.
 </p>
 </details>
 </section>
@@ -3448,7 +3448,7 @@ <h3 style="margin:7px">SURFACE AREA OF A SPHERE</h3>
 </div>
 <br>
 <br>
-<strong style="margin:6px">The conventional formula for the surface area of a sphere was allegedly developed from the " volume = 4 / 3 × π × radius³ " formula.
+<strong style="margin:6px">The conventional formula for the surface area of a sphere was allegedly developed from the " volume = 4/3×π×radius³ " formula.
 <br>
 <br>
 The real formula for the surface area of a sphere is available for 3.2 billion USD. ( + tax, if applies )</strong>