Generic, Table: The Five Suns of the `Verse (constant period version)

The Five Suns of the Verse (constant period version)

While much of the source data comes from The Complete and Official Map of the Verse, © Universal Studios and Quantum Mechanix Inc. as presented as a free supplement entitled The Verse in Numbers, whichever producers did the celestial math got it wrong, sadly. Pity, too, since QMx does such shiny work. And I've yet to see any correction. I doubt it will ever be corrected because the vast majority don't know the error, don't care, and it's just not profitable enough to correct. And I'm not a voice that gets heard.
 
The easy part of the problem is that the masses of the suns involved is a factor in determining their orbital period. Granted, science fiction is already a suspension of belief, and a space opera quadrupley such. With a magical hand wave, gravity and "timey-wimey stuff" becomes irrelevant, and whole planets can be made into clones of southern California thanks the the miracle of "terraforming machines".
 
But this issue can be solved with just a choice. So, presented here, is a choice. It assumes that given the solar masses and orbital periods, the orbital diameters (semi-major axes) are corrected (instead of adjusting the orbital periods, thus keeping Murphy and Red Sun systsms always opposite one another). We will also neglect the complexities of massive stars acting on hundreds of small bodies and pretend they are all in perfect circular orbits with no eccentricities. Also, Lagrange points are not that stable, especially for said massive stars in play. Don't get me started on luminosity radiation. Oh, wait...yeah, So.Cal. would be about right on that.
 
For the curious, when you have two stars in a two-body problem:
√[(R₂³)/(M₂+M₁)] where R is the radius (usually in A.U.) of the larger star's mass (M₁) to the smaller body's mass (M₂). The mistake that the T.V.I.N. makes is that it neglects the smaller body's mass. In our own Solar System, because the smaller bodies are so very, very small, we can neglect the smaller mass. But with massive stars (using solar masses is typical) very close to one another, it makes a difference. So here I could either keep the orbital period the same and adjust the orbital radius, or keep the radius constant and give the correct revolution period. This choice presents the former for those wishing to prevent causing problems with orbital mechanics.