Because we don't know all the factors. You're saying that a glacier would float regardless to whether it's adhered to the ground beneath it (and adhesion is an open question as well). In short, you're saying there will be a point where the difference in density would overcome adhesion. Perhaps. Or perhaps it would exceed the tensile strength of ice with the result of shearing of the ice cap itself. Or perhaps not. There's more at work here than a simple difference in densities.
Since you mentioned a 55 gallon drum. an experiment would be to allow water to freeze in the bottom of the drum, then fill the drum with water and see if the layer at the bottom floats, and, if so, how long it takes. Or...
Here's a proposed experiment. It requires a disposable cup or container, both that are exact cylinders or are flared at the top, some sandpaper, and water chilled to just above freezing. Roughen the inside bottom of the container with the sandpaper, pour in enough water to make a small layer at the bottom, then put in a freezer. Take water and put it in container and put it in a refrigerator. Wait overnight. The next day, with our icebox "glacier" still in the freezer, gently pour the chilled water over the top. The amount of water added must exceed the depth of the layer of the ice by at least 1%, preferably more. Then see what happens.
An alternative is to let our experimental "glacier" sit outside overnight in freezing temperatures, then pour the chilled water on top.
Note: I'm thinking the water poured on top has to exceed the depth of the layer of ice by 1% to rule out not adding enough water. Many times I've poured water for animals on top of the ice in their trough or bowls, and it wasn't enough to make the ice below float, maybe because the water I added wasn't enough to overcome adhesion. I haven't used this as an example of water on top of ice because I'm thinking it could be something different.
Seems like you've got a combo of trying too
hard and not trying hard enough.
Good that you get it that things need depth
of water in order to float.
But I think you you are trying too hard to
defend the indefensible, that being a story
that is readily disproved a thousand other
ways. Even your noted gappist knows all
data is wholly inconsistent with a flood-
but has God miracle all evidence of a
"Flood" to look as if it didn't happen.
It makes a kind of weird sense; proof of God
kind of eliminates a need for faith.
Your experiments to discover an Unknown
factor, an undiscovered power of ice adhesion,
I mean, seriously?
Glaciers are not even stuck down!
They move. You can see rock they slid over
in Central Park NYC and a million other
places.
It's basically a huge ice cube sitting there on the
ground, sliding downhill.
You are proposing that a certain size ice
loses buoyancy? Like it becomes more dense
than water? You do know that water / ice
is incompressible?
When chunks of glaciers break of into the water,
they float.
No "unknown factor" makes them sink.
You seem trying too hard to make the story float!
And not hard enough to see what would
happen. Engineers can figure stresses
or whether a battleship is too dense to float.
Do a little engineering. This is not ice
frozen into a bowl. Of course a little
water on top of that wont float it
Do a relevant experiment with a chunk of ice
a the ground, unconfined. Flood the area and see
ifn it floats.
I asked you to figure the buoyancy, the upward
force exceeding the weight, of ice five miles
thick.
It's going to be about 8% more than the weight
of the ice.
Try calculating the lift excerted on one square foot.
In the absence of any strange unknown factors
and the very well known physics involved, is there
any reasonable way to deny that ice floats?
