This is exactly how I would characterize your statements. You don't seem to realize that what's going on is coupling. If you are dealing with an expanding universe than you have a horizon size dictated by 1/H (in units of time) that has to be equal to the number density times the velocity times the cross section. Even if you don't have the expanding universe as you see it, you have to have some characteristic time in order for anything to come to equilibrium. If you do the simple, simple math you will see that the time it will take for the CMB radiation to get into equilibrium with the surroundings is so ridiculously huge if we have any structure whatsoever there is no way we can have equilibrium at this point. It's just simple relic physics and you think by using terms like "global" equilibrium you can get around it because you refuse to believe in a finite age or extent to the universe.

Well, I've got news for you, you simply don't have the observational evidence on your side. The universe is not infinite simply because we know the universe is evolving and we know that steady state doesn't have a leg to stand on. But we've gone through this all before, and you are likely to just be as stubborn as previously.

The only thing is, the author knows a thing or two about cosmic abundances. Steady staters require all the Helium to be produced in stellar nucleosynthesis. Do you? If not, where did the Helium come from?

(Hint: there's not enough energy in the universe for the 25% cosmic abundance of Helium to be made in stars).