While I agree with the physical intuition/interpretation, it is important to remember numerical dissipation has - as the term suggests - a numerical (not physical) origin. The numerical implicit integrator solving the governing equations ends up "losing" energy as solution progresses.
Imagine running a simulation of a simple pendulum. If there is no damping, you should expect the pendulum to swing forever after an initial impulse - if there is no dissipation due to material damping, aerodynamic drag, mechanical friction, etc. As it turns out, if you ran that simulation, you will see the pendulum "slow down" over time.
Now, whether this numerical loss is meaningful or not depends entirely on the problem. If you are performing transient analysis of rotating machinery, then you may care a lot about this dissipation. On the other hand, if you are running a quasi-static model, then the numerical loss might end up benefiting you because some high frequency components to the solution might be removed making the solution manifold much smoother which allows the auto-time stepper to take longer time steps.
*********************************************************
Are you new to this forum? If so, please read these FAQs:
