oh, you are referring to your "stellar core" concept.
easy enough to refute:
1. earth has insufficient mass for its core to be the remnant of a star.
2. the planets are all a bit to closely packed to allow for each to be such remnants.
I think you mixed up two things:
the well-supported theory that all elements heavier than 6 on the PToE are generated in stars, and all heavier than [Fe] are generated in novas/supernovas in a much earlier star generation cycle of the universe, and that our system formed from accretion of the dust of those dead stars
-and-
your own misconstruction of geology.
Easier than the concept of a hollow earth?
1. earth has insufficient mass for its core to be the remnant of a star.
I see. And exactly how much mass does a star have, that has undergone collapse to a neutron star (with unimaginable density), and then grown back ?
2. the planets are all a bit to closely packed to allow for each to be such remnants.
First, not all planets are life-bearing types.
Second, what law of the universe would keep such remnants from ending up packed 'a bit too closely' , and being the constituents of a solar system?
It is not from lack, as I can assure you there are more stars 'in the sky' than there are planets that foster life.