Unexpected Redshift of nearby stars

We report a list of nearby stars whose Redshift is too much higher than other nearby stars based on an analysis of 58,916 stars. We have used SIMBAD Astronomical Database and obtained this information from 1.4 million records. The data indicate that the Redshift of the almost 200 stars does not completely correlate with distance, and there are some exceptions. The high Redshift of nearby stars questions expansion of space and the Hubble constant.

The expansion of space and recently accelerated expansion of space are accepted with most astronomers and cosmologists. In the expansion space theory, reason for the Redshift of the waves is expansion of space, and space can expand with the speed more than speed of light. In the expansion space theory, regardless of location of the observer, more distance objects have more Redshift and move away faster. Hence, we could expect that objects with equal distance from observer would have almost equal Redshift.
In this paper we have used data of nearby stars to investigate the relationship between the distance and the Redshift. The advantage of choosing nearby stars is using the Parallax method for calculating distance of the stars that is more precise than other methods. The paper has excluded the stars with blueshift.
We have found that there are some exceptions. There are some nearby stars with very high Redshift that expansion of space theory and Hubble constant cannot describe their Redshift. There are 41 stars with z > 1 and almost 200 stars have z > 0.001.

Statistical results
Although SIMBAD Astronomical Database let us write our query to extract data, there is some problem. Max record number in each query is too low and repeating the name of stars in different records is the second problem. Hence, we wrote a script and executed it at different distances. Also, we wrote a program for grouping data and deleting repeated records. Although we can extract stars with the highest Redshift by a simple query, for comparing them with normal stars we need to download too many records. The number of records that we have downloaded for extracting data of 58,916 stars, reached 1.4 million records.
The average distance of the stars is equal to 7.841789 (mas), which is almost 1753.5 light-years. Also, the average Redshift of the 58,916 stars is equal to 0.001629. However, there is some exception. The number of stars with z > 1 is equal to 41, and the total number of stars whose Redshift is more than 0.001 is equal to 199. If we exclude the top 199 stars with the highest Redshift, the average Redshift of the remaining stars (58,717) will be decreased to 9.73353E-05. Table.1 shows a list of 40 nearby stars with the highest Redshift. The first column is the name of the stars, the second column is the Redshift of the stars, and the third column is the distance of the stars from the earth. The sub-columns (3-6) are the distance of the stars in different measurement units. The stars in the table.1 have sorted descending based on their Redshift in column (2). Hence, the Redshift of the star in the first row is the highest Redshift in the 58,916 stars. At the top of the list, although LSPM J1247+0646 is so close to us (distance=19.0575 mas), it has the highest unnormal Redshift and its Redshift is equal to the z=3.63758 (http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/simid?Ident=LSPM+J1247%2B0646+&submit =submit+id). We can submit the name of stars on this list and check their information one by one. For instance, by submitting the name "KUV 03292+0035" the information is accessible at the address: http://simbad.ustrasbg.fr/simbad/simid?Ident=KUV+03292%2B0035&submit=s ubmit+id .
We can check the distance of these stars from the more recent and larger Gaia mission by entering a star name into this web search form: https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/ , but Gaia cannot see the brightest stars, so the very nearest stars might not be in the Gaia.
To conclude, we cannot describe the high Redshift of the LSPM J1247+0646 and other stars in the table.1 by the theory of the expansion of space because their distances are too low. Also, the Hubble constant is not valid for describing the nature of these objects. Usually, we expect that stars with Redshift more than 1 are in distances more than 1 billion light-years and there is not a positive correlation between the Redshift of the stars and their distance. On the other hand, for describing the high Redshift of the nearby stars by the Doppler effect they must change their redshift along the time, if they are a binary star or change their distance if they are moving away from us. So, we need a complete theory to describe the different losing rate of the energy of the electromagnetic waves in space.