It actually is accelerating relative to you, in exactly the same way that a kid on the outside of a spinny-go-round is accelerating harder than a kid on the ins

It actually is accelerating relative to you, in exactly the same way that a kid on the outside of a spinny-go-round is accelerating harder than a kid on the inside. Of course, there's not a huge difference, as a couple km is spare change to the radius of the planet, but it's there. There's definitely a constant vector difference between you and Everest's peak, and that's likely what you're thinking of. But Everest itself is under a greater strain to maintain that vector compared to you. And that's actually a measurable difference (where measurable is on scales of stupefying precision not normally used in everyday life). And as another noted, it really should maintain that relative vector - if it didn't, the earth wouldn't be in steady-state and you'd have a changing position vector between you and it, and that'd imply one of you was moving... hopefully it's you. (Let's ignore all the techtonic complications, as that really ruins the simplicity of the argument :) EDIT: As noted elsewhere in the thread, Everest isn't on the equator, and - if I may be bold enough to presume - you likely aren't either. So it's not clear if you or Everest is on the outside of the spinny-go-round in the analogy. For the purposes of wondering if velocity or gravitational effects on spacetime are the dominant factors, this has no effect. If you're actually interested in the effective relative centrifugal forces between you and Everest, then it's damn near everything.