Let's revisit the parachute paradox for a moment.
It was said that a man with a parachute dropping from the aeroplane will not fall to the Earth at the same rate as a man without a parachute - a slower rate, in fact. This is undeniably true because it is how we have parachutists. If this is denied then fundamental social reality is denied and advocates belong in a mental institute.
It was then postulated that this cannot be the work of Dark Energy because Dark Energy would accelerate the Earth towards the parachutist at the same rate, thereby killing the parachutist without regards for the parachute. This is false on its face.
The FET defense was that dark energy pushes the air up into the parachute, thereby creating the effect of air resistance even with Dark Energy at work. This, however, invites difficulties into Dark Energy theory as a whole.
Firstly, Dark Energy theory has on occasion said there are two components to Dark Energy: the one, which accelerates the Earth upward at 9.8 meters per second squared; and the other, which bends light. Now, the dark energy that bends light penetrates through the Earth and the other one exerts its force moving the Earth upwards. Here, we have something of a problem.
If Dark Energy is blocked by the Earth, how can it push the air up into the parachute? Furthermore, if it pushes air into the parachute at this instance, why then is it not always pushing up air? Why, then, do we not have a constant updraft of air which, if it is powerful enough to succeed the Earth's acceleration and stymy the parachute's path downwards, would eventually escape us, thus obliterating the atmosphere and leaving us all to asphyxiate and die?
If we assume that the air's progress is not greater than the Earth's acceleration, so that it stays in the atmosphere and yet still pushes the parachute, then it is being pushed up independent of the dark energy by the Earth simultaneously (it isn't fast enough, you see), thereby negating the effects of the air on the parachute causing the parachutists to plummet to his death.
Gravitational theory does a better job of explaining this mess than "Dark Energy" theory. I propose you Occam's razor, that the needlessly complex, spiderwebbed, and hob-nob theory of Flat Earth is wrong because it is riddled with inconsistency. Saying that all objects affect each other due to their mass (a stipulation proven by hundreds of years of scientific research) makes more sense than saying a force of unseen origin and cause is pushing the Earth up at an ever-increasing speed.