The problem with the vision of an egalitarian meritocracy in science (or any other field, honestly) is that reviewing, understanding and critiquing someone else's work has a non-zero cost - actually quite a large cost if done correctly. Also, the people most qualified to do this analysis generally loathe doing it, as they'd rather be spending time on their own original work. Inevitably, people develop heuristics to estimate the credibility of every new email or article that comes across their desk, to decide which is even worth reading.
Understandably, one of those heuristics is credentials/authority - the ratio of good articles published by non-experts in their field is extremely small and massively outweighed by crackpots. So what does a smart non-expert with a good idea do to hack this system? "Bootstrap" your authority, by first finding someone with more credentials than yourself, but not so much notoriety that they're too busy to read your email. If you can convince them, they'll bring it up the chain to the next-highest authority they can convince, and eventually it'll have some important names behind it and people will pay attention. Brown was able to accomplish this with only two collaborators, so I consider him a master bootstrapper for this :)
Everyone wants to be the patent clerk slaving away in isolation who pops out with a new revolutionary theory of the universe, but it's just not realistic these days. On the internet, a non-expert trying to rapidly gain credibility on their own is indistinguishable from social media hucksterism/"influencing". If you want to break into a new field, find some experts in that field and work with them!