What conclusion? Time dilation and length contraction?

Both conclusions. If a "proof" is wrong, the conclusions must be different than if a "proof" is right. I'm questioning if it is the case here.

That would put a final nail in the coffin for those that believe the Quantum has a true random element to it.

I agree. In fact we can consider in the same way, the difference seeming existing between the "strength" of gravity in our actual universe and its strength in the initial universe. Reality could simply be depending on the different "density" of the energy in both cases. So gravity would have the same "effect" then, than now. The consequence would be the irrelevance of the four fondamental "forces". And explaining the evolution of the universe would become a lot simpler.

It will always be the same number of Planck Lengths and normal Physics can be continued down to any Metric Scale.

In my mind, Plancks length is a "physical" metric; which doesn't mean that there is not previous lengths; it only means that there not tridimensional. A volume of space measuring 10^-33 meter in diameter is bigger than a volume of zero diameter. Since Plancks diameter is the shortest possible in three dimensions, shorter lengths have to be in two dimensions. Furthermore, shorter than 2 has to be one". The Event horizon has to be at the frontier between three and two dimensions I think. That is also where the BB singularity would be. And two dimensional geometry is as "normal" geometry as three dimensional, but laws of physics are more restricted. I can't see what other law that could apply to two dimensions, beside centripetal and centrifugal "effects" provoked by a rotation movement.

The whole "picture" of redshift and "depth" etc. are only "effects" of gradual collapsed metric. But a collapsing of three dimensional volume is not exactly the same as collapsing of a two dimensional surface. Geometry doesn't apply the same way.

As for inertia, to me, it's related to mass and not "momentum" since free falling doesn't show "inertia". But then if "momentum" is related to "movement", movement produces mass; so there're all related. It's important to "see" in what way; not only "state" it.