[hamdani yusuf]

...
You will never have a situation where the rocket and any clock that it is passing will disagree as to what their respective clocks read as they passed each other.

Let me summarize your analysis to make it easier to read.

According to earth's (and stationary clocks) reference frame:
when the journey restart, clock on earth shows 10 sec, while rocket clock shows 8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the first clock, it shows 11 sec, while rocket clock shows 8.8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 2nd clock, it shows 12 sec, while rocket clock shows 9.6 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 3rd clock, it shows 13 sec, while rocket clock shows 10.4 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 4th clock, it shows 14 sec, while rocket clock shows 11.2 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 5th clock, it shows 15 sec, while rocket clock shows 12 sec.
the rocket then turn around
when the rocket is passing the 4th clock, it shows 16 sec, while rocket clock shows 12.8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 3rd clock, it shows 17 sec, while rocket clock shows 13.6 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 2nd clock, it shows 18 sec, while rocket clock shows 14.4 sec.
when the rocket is passing the first clock, it shows 19 sec, while rocket clock shows 15.2 sec.
when the rocket arrives on earth, earth clock shows 20 sec, while rocket clock shows 16 sec.

According to rocket's reference frame:
when the journey restart, clock on earth shows 10 sec, while rocket clock shows 8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the first clock, it shows 11 sec, while rocket clock shows 8.8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 2nd clock, it shows 12 sec, while rocket clock shows 9.6 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 3rd clock, it shows 13 sec, while rocket clock shows 10.4 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 4th clock, it shows 14 sec, while rocket clock shows 11.2 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 5th clock, it shows 15 sec, while rocket clock shows 12 sec.
the earth then turn around
when the rocket is passing the 4th clock, it shows 16 sec, while rocket clock shows 12.8 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 3rd clock, it shows 17 sec, while rocket clock shows 13.6 sec.
when the rocket is passing the 2nd clock, it shows 18 sec, while rocket clock shows 14.4 sec.
when the rocket is passing the first clock, it shows 19 sec, while rocket clock shows 15.2 sec.
when the rocket arrives on earth, earth clock shows 20 sec, while rocket clock shows 16 sec.

[xersanozgen]

Twins must have same age ABSOLUTELY.

In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame.   If you confirm the theory SR, If person A has a high speed according to person B, when we suppoze that  person A is rest (inertial/reference frame), at this time  the person B has same speed according to person A. Both them are exposed to time dilation and their ages will become the same.

[Janus]

Twins must have same age ABSOLUTELY.

In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame.   If you confirm the theory SR, If person A has a high speed according to person B, when we suppoze that  person A is rest (inertial/reference frame), at this time  the person B has same speed according to person A. Both them are exposed to time dilation and their ages will become the same.

Neither is ever "exposed" to time dilation. Time dilation is not an effect that "acts on" objects.  Time dilation is the relative comparison of lock rates as measured from frames with relative motion.  To use an analogy it is the equivalent of two men standing back to back and each saying that the other man is "behind him".  There is no absolute method to determine who is really "behind" who, sine "behind" is a totally subjective direction. Each man is equally correct in his claim that the other man is behind him.

Time dilation is also just one of three aspects of SR that needs to be taken into account when analyzing any relativity scenario, the other two being length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity.  If you try to analyze any situation by just using time dilation alone you will uncover what appears to be contradictions.  This isn't due to any problem in SR but due to an misapplication of it.
The other problem come when acceleration's role in the scenario is neglected.  This is not to say that acceleration has an effect on a clock, but acceleration does effect what the accelerating observer will measure.  A non-accelerating observer will always measure clocks with a relative motion relative to himself as ticking slower. This is not the case for an accelerating one; He will measure different clocks, even if they have the same relative motion relative to himself to tick at different rates depending on their position from him relative to the acceleration. (He will even measure clocks at rest relative to him as ticking at different rates if they are separated from him along the direction of the acceleration.)
It is break in the reciprocity of the measurements of the observers when one undergoes an acceleration that produces the end result that both observers will agree that one of them aged more than the other if they are separated and then brought back together.   To go back to the earlier analogy is is as if the two back to back men are walking apart. As they walk each sees the other as getting further and further behind him.  But if now one of the men were to turn around and start walking in the opposite direction he would find that the other man has "moved" to be in front of him. They now both agree as to who is behind who and by how much. The one man turning around in this analogy is the equivalent of one of the twins undergoing an acceleration between the outbound and return legs in the twin paradox scenario.
The whole idea behind the theory of Relativity is that we don't live in Universe that consists of space and time as completely separate things, but in one the consists of space-time, where the "directions" of space vs time are not absolute but depend on the reference frame from which they are being measured. ( just like what is "in front" of you depends on the direction you are facing.)

[xersanozgen]

If you know and internalize the principle of reciprocity; you have not any chance. To suppose  that the Earth is an inertial frame is not scientific.

[Janus]

If you know and internalize the principle of reciprocity; you have not any chance.

Nonsense statement.

To suppose  that the Earth is an inertial frame is not scientific.

Whether or not the Earth is assumed as an inertial frame is irrelevant in this case.
 In those cases were it is relevant the effect can be easily accounted for.
In this case, the total difference between treating the Earth as an inertial frame and accounting for it non-inertial frame status results in a total difference of ~300 nanoseconds,  This is insignificant to the 4 sec difference the scenario produces between the Earth and rocket clocks. 

Some hand-waving argument that the Earth is not an inertial frame is not a rebuttal of Relativity. In those cases were it is relevant, Relativity can easily deal with it.

[PhysBang]

In accordance with reciprocity principle (ın space condition) we may choice any one of twins for the role of relative actor or reference frame.

Sure, we can do this if we ignore the text of the scenario, where one twin turns around relative to themselves.